Robots and AI and Jobs, oh my.

[stoneaxe]

No, I'm trying to figure that out. Taut's comments seemed to be self contradicting. The worry of job loss is Luddite fallacy but policy makers will need to account for workers displaced by increased productivity.....which is it?

Another part of this argument that I've said all along is a required change in social policy. Why are we paying for people to be lazy? Now we are supposed to pay for people to replace them too? My original comment that it (who gets elected) not mattering is all about the inevitability of it all. We may have to pay people because there is no other choice other than killing them all.

And yes I picked 1995 for a reason...the data shows a trend for less participation amongst 25-54 year olds since then. Illegal immigrants have doubled from 1995 (5.7 million) to now (11 million) and what effect do you think tech has had in the same period? I know in my industry it's reduced the required # of people to do the job 20-1. Millions of new illegal immigrants that are willing to work for less but somehow that's not affecting jobs available and holding wages down....technology replacing workers in all areas, a trend that will continue but it won't have any effect? New jobs will be created sure, but I don't think we'll need anywhere near the same number of people as are working today.

And by the way, 54 in 1995 is 72 today.  Half of the 44 year olds in the 1995 29/54 sector are retired boomers and the rest will retire in 5 years. Looking for a reason that workforce participation is down? Look no further, there are less of them.

Exactly how does less of them effect the rate of participation within that group in any way other than it should increase it without other factors influencing it? Using the data from that group exclusively takes out the aging population factor.

[PonoBill]

So theory trumps numbers? Why do you think the illegals come? We have a labor shortage. Sooner or later officialdom needs to face that fact and announce to people who will believe no matter what that immigrants are stealing their jobs, that yes, we have a massive labor shortage and we have to deal with it.

You ask why we are paying people to be lazy? So, okay, now I'm confused. The jobs are there. We have a minimum wage that equates to 20K a year. Not truly a living wage but enough for an immigrant family willing to work hard for 16 hours a day, mom and dad both. So what's your plan. Stop illegal immigration? Good luck in filling any of those jobs. It simply exacerbates the labor shortage. Why do you think that no lawmaker has pushed for larger fines for employers hiring illegals--nothing beyond the handwaving stage. Because it's unsupportable by the facts. There's nothing to replace that labor pool.

And by the way, 54 in 1995 is 72 today.  Half of the 44 year olds in the 1995 29/54 sector are retired boomers and the rest will retire in 5 years. Looking for a reason that workforce participation is down? Look no further, there are less of them.

Exactly how does less of them effect the rate of participation within that group in any way other than it should increase it without other factors influencing it? Using the data from that group exclusively takes out the aging population factor.
[/quote]

What!! No it doesn't. There are a lot more baby boomers than any other population segment. From the US population study:

"In 2050, every age group is projected to be larger than it was in 2012. This is not the case between 2012 and 2030 or between 2030 and 2050. For instance, the number of men aged 48 to 58 and the number of women aged 47 to 58 in 2030 are projected to be smaller than those in the same age groups in 2012 (see Figure 2). This is because large cohorts of baby boomers were in these age groups in 2012, and smaller and younger cohorts will have replaced them by 2030. Similarly, the number of women aged 66 to 77 is projected to peak in 2030 and be smaller in 2050 than it was in 2030, as the smaller birth cohorts born in the late
1970s moves into these age groups."

There are a lot more baby boomers than any other age group. As they age out, the workforce numbers go down. It's had  significant workforce effects since the 70's--just look at the shape of the full curve. That's the baby boom, growing up and getting jobs, right there--both the increasing numbers and then the inevitable decrease as they reach retirement age. This couldn't be more obvious.

[Admin]

I'm trying to figure out what you are agreeing to there Taut. On one hand people are luddites if they believe tech will replace them, on the other policy makers will have to institute a living wage just for being. Why would they have to do that if people aren't being replaced? I agree that they will likely need to implement a living wage just for being at some time in the future....already being considered in some parts of the world.

Looking for a reason that workforce participation is down? Look no further, there are less of them.

The Boomer drop off is a huge factor.  Millennials, and soon Gen Z, outnumber Boomers, however, (as will the Boomlets when their time comes) and are there to replace the boomers and more as we lose them.  They do need to join the workforce in greater numbers, however, (many are on the sidelines/in the basement) and they have been less than enthused by much of the work available.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/04/29/baby-boomers-just-eclipsed-by-millennials-will-soon-be-no-3/
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/10/21/what-we-know-about-the-92-million-americans-who-arent-in-the-labor-force/

[all~wet]

Less hysteria, more stoic, rational, matter of fact reasoning is always good. Thank you for that. Pono indeed.

[stoneaxe]

Stop illegal immigration  increase legal immigration, reduce the downward pressure of wages created by illegals, increase wages across the board, improve education, reduce benefits for the lazy = increased participation

[PonoBill]

The Boomer drop off is a huge factor.  Millennials, and soon Gen Z, outnumber Boomers, however, (as will the Boomlets when their time comes) and are there to replace the boomers and more as we lose them.

They do in total, but so what. There are fewer in each age cohort then there are boomers. Population growth rate in the US is .7 percent and declining yearly. The aging population will depress that quickly as well as the fact that having children is an expensive proposition in the developed world. The rate of population aging in the US is a two percent increase in people over 65 per year. Workforce size is declining by one percent per year.

I see a pattern.

What downward pressure? We have a minimum wage. Increase wages across the board? That's only feasible is production increases regardless of workforce size. Oops, more automation. Increase legal immigration and stop illegal immigration--so there's a difference in which immigrant is stealing those valuable "starter" jobs? 

[Admin]

The fluctuations are more complicated than looking at a single group.  The size and participation of the incoming group is a factor as well.  It is not Boomer-Centric as headlines often make it seem.  Essentially, there is more than a butt for every seat. 

[stoneaxe]

You are absolutely nuts if you don't think illegal immigration depresses wages.

[PonoBill]

You are absolutely nuts if you don't think illegal immigration depresses wages.

Well, that's definitive.

Admin, your chart shows more than 50 million seats being empty in the next ten years, and a smaller generation (Gen X behind it) to fill them. Postmillennial moving into the 18-28 group being smaller yet. Yes, the baby boomer population is getting smaller each year. People die. Absent the boomlet, the labor shortage would be far worse. We'd already be 10 million short.

In the short term (ten years), fixing the skilled labor shortage will take more people out of the labor pool--education takes time. If there is a serious effort to fix the problem it will be even more important to expand immigration--legal or otherwise--to fill those jobs. I don't pretend the problem is simple, but it certainly isn't solvable if a majority of people believe it's just that immigration and robots take our jobs.

[Admin]

You are absolutely nuts if you don't think illegal immigration depresses wages.

Admin, your chart shows more than 50 million seats being empty in the next ten years, and a smaller generation (Gen X behind it) to fill them. Postmillennial moving into the 18-28 group being smaller yet. Yes, the baby boomer population is getting smaller each year. People die.

That is not what it shows.  Gen X is not moving into the workforce to fill seats.  We are already in the workforce.  Each year a group falls off and a group replaces them.  A large percentage of Boomers have already retired or died.  That is already factored in and has no impact going forward.  The group of Boomers that have yet to retire are more than replaced by the incoming group entering the workplace.  Look at 65 vs 21 (or choose your numbers) over time.  One issue right now is that Boomers have been incredible participants in the workforce vs Millennials who have been historically poor (and late) entrants . 

 

[PonoBill]

I think your second link is pretty interesting:http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/10/21/what-we-know-about-the-92-million-americans-who-arent-in-the-labor-force/

In fact a lot of the seats left by boomers HAVE to be filled by Gen X as the only likely qualified workers. Millennials are a puzzle. I found the statistic in the article above--that 400,000 Millennials reported that they were retired--not as surprising as the author indicates. The group that numerically replaces boomers is postmillennial--a smaller group to start with, but one that is increasingly delaying entering the workforce in favor of education.



The elephant in the room is that we have a lot of people who should be joining the workforce who aren't. I have no idea what it would take to motivate the folks in the orange stripe area (and probably the red one too) to actually work. Anyone who has tried to hire someone in their twenties, or having hired them, tried to get them to show up and do something, is probably equally puzzled.

[stoneaxe]

You are absolutely nuts if you don't think illegal immigration depresses wages.

Well, that's definitive.

I thought so too...glad we agree......

[tautologies]

I'm trying to figure out what you are agreeing to there Taut. On one hand people are luddites if they believe tech will replace them, on the other policy makers will have to institute a living wage just for being. Why would they have to do that if people aren't being replaced? I agree that they will likely need to implement a living wage just for being at some time in the future....already being considered in some parts of the world.

Happy to clarify. In addition to Pono's point, which is immediate there are two major points.
First in the beginning reeducation or support. Look at the first truck delivering beer with Ubers truck. That truck can "only" do highway driving and need an operator with slightly different skills to work. It will very very soon radically change the trucking industry. I could see it as having truckers sit in hubs on nodes and then drive it the last mile so to speak. This means truckers can stay at home with families, and probably deliver 4 times the merchandise for the trucks that drive themselves between the nodes non-stop. The truckers themselves will have to be able to operate the AI, and have to be better at driving different trucks etc.
In addition the industry will need more engineers.

Secondly and this has some temporal space. It is a decision point where we as a society are just so productive we simply do not need more workers.

Remember these developments happen over time and even if I think there is some overlap, in the short term there is a huge lack of skilled workers. Why do you think you get paid $150k right out of school as a software engineer? There are a ton of opportunities out there. I met a guy who took 6 months to sharpen his skills (he knew software engineering before, but wasn't super sharp). He got a sponsored visa, and well paid job.

My point is, it doesn't take a ton of years to get there. Eventually, AI will be able to do much of the day to day coding, at the hands of IS engineers and cycle will be moving forward as well.
 

[pdxmike]

On one hand people are luddites if they believe tech will replace them, on the other policy makers will have to institute a living wage just for being.

This is frustrating--it reminds me that someone used the word "luddite" here a year or two ago, and I couldn't look it up because I couldn't find my dictionary.  Then you used it just now and I still can't find it.  Guess I need to take a trip down to the library.

[PonoBill]

Don't worry about it PDX, what you actually are is a Fuddyduddyite, and that's not in the dictionary anyway. It was removed at the same time that Obama made them take out "gullible".