Relationship between Maximum productivity & Unemployment.

In a society as technologically advanced as ours, the problem of “unemployment” and the problem of “how do we maximize productivity” are intimately related—coupled in an inverse functional relationship. By that I mean, as a rule, steps taken to improve one will screw up the other proportionally.

Here’s an example:

There are many jobs machines can do more efficiently, faster, and at less cost than can humans. So all we have to do to improve productivity in those areas is to get rid of the humans and replace them with machines.

As you can see, productivity skyrockets, but so does unemployment! With today’s technology, improving productivity is a very easy problem to solve…so long as you do not care about the increased unemployment it would cause.

Or we can look at that situation from its flip side:

Obviously there are machines that can do most things more efficiently, faster, and at less cost than humans, but let’s get rid of the machines and keep those jobs open for humans to do. They need the jobs.

Here we see employment being created or increased (unemployment lowered), but at a significant cost to productivity. Unemployment also is a fairly easy problem to solve if you do not care about the huge disadvantage to productivity and cost.

So it is obvious that you can easily improve the condition of either of those problems (unemployment or less than maximized productivity)—one at the expense of the other; but because of the inverse functional relationship, you cannot improve both at the same time.

Or so it would seem! (More on that point in the next thread.)

(This is part 4 of the "observations of the human predicament" series I am attempting.)

It is a little oversimplified, the argument supposes that we already know how to do all of this. We are not in a condition of evolution in technology and science where we can "get rid of the humans and replace them with machines" and we are not in an economic or social condition where we can "get rid of the machines and keep those jobs open to humans." It is just not that clear cut as of now, probably never will be.

But we can use the idea to illustrate another example of the "human predicament" causing us to rethink both social and economic terms for a society where labor is slowly being removed from the equation.

OrphanSlug said:

It is a little oversimplified, the argument supposes that we already know how to do all of this. We are not in a condition of evolution in technology and science where we can "get rid of the humans and replace them with machines" and we are not in an economic or social condition where we can "get rid of the machines and keep those jobs open to humans." It is just not that clear cut as of now, probably never will be.

But we can use the idea to illustrate another example of the "human predicament" causing us to rethink both social and economic terms for a society where labor is slowly being removed from the equation.

Click to expand...

Good comments, GS. I thank you for them.

Please realize that I was saying in areas where machines can replace machines...rather than something more akin to "replace all humans with machines."

We'll probably never do that.

My point is that where machines can be used...they normally will out-perform humans...and productivity will rise. But the "problem" is that fewer jobs is the result. And conversely, keeping jobs open for humans rather than replacing them with the more productive machines...results in less productivity.

Frank Apisa said:

Good comments, GS. I thank you for them.

Please realize that I was saying in areas where machines can replace machines...rather than something more akin to "replace all humans with machines."

We'll probably never do that.

My point is that where machines can be used...they normally will out-perform humans...and productivity will rise. But the "problem" is that fewer jobs is the result. And conversely, keeping jobs open for humans rather than replacing them with the more productive machines...results in less productivity.

Click to expand...

Given there are humans in the workforce who seem to have weak work habits and are less proficient as time goes by, machines are looking a lot better all the time.

Fewer jobs for those particular jobs may result, yes. However, it frees up those workers to do less dangerous, less repetitive, less mundane jobs.

Recall a time when all the car bodies were welded on the assembly line by human welders, a dirty, hot, and dangerous job - many injuries and some fatalities (mostly due to electrocution - if I recall). Then came the welding robots. First they did only the easy welding. As their capabilities improved, they ended up doing most of the welding. All the workers those welding robots displaced ended up doing other work, and / or the safer, higher skill required welding, some retired out of the workforce by their choice. All good things, once the initial disruption was adapted to.

Scenarios such as these have occurred since automation could take over any jobs, and will only continue going forward in similar fashion, where robots take over the dangerous, the repetitive, and the mundane jobs, freeing the humans for jobs that they are better suited for with their unique abilities and capabilities.

There is no reason to believe that this progression will not proceed forward much the same as it has, the established track record as shown by actual history.

So I disagree that there's a long term relationship between automation and unemployment. Short term, possibly. But certainly not long term.

WCH said:

Given there are humans in the workforce who seem to have weak work habits and are less proficient as time goes by, machines are looking a lot better all the time.

Click to expand...

They definitely are.

And quite honestly...some machines are works of art when it comes to efficiency and ability.

We cannot...or at least, we should not...sell them short.

The notion that steno pools no longer exist, because doing what the steno pool had to do...can be handled by machines that make the people in the steno pool look like dolts.

PERSONAL THING: I write lots of essays and op ed pieces (used to, anyway)...and at one time I used to know the research librarian at three libraries in my area by their first name...and they knew mine. I often would call for a fact that I needed for a paper...and they enjoyed looking stuff up...kinda showing off that they knew were to look for an obscure fact.

TODAY...I can get any of those facts within seconds here on the computer I'm using to write this comment.

The total amount of human labor "saved" by this machine is beyond measure.

eohrnberger said:

Fewer jobs for those particular jobs may result, yes. However, it frees up those workers to do less dangerous, less repetitive, less mundane jobs.

Recall a time when all the car bodies were welded on the assembly line by human welders, a dirty, hot, and dangerous job - many injuries and some fatalities (mostly due to electrocution - if I recall). Then came the welding robots. First they did only the easy welding. As their capabilities improved, they ended up doing most of the welding. All the workers those welding robots displaced ended up doing other work, and / or the safer, higher skill required welding, some retired out of the workforce by their choice. All good things, once the initial disruption was adapted to.

Scenarios such as these have occurred since automation could take over any jobs, and will only continue going forward in similar fashion, where robots take over the dangerous, the repetitive, and the mundane jobs, freeing the humans for jobs that they are better suited for with their unique abilities and capabilities.

There is no reason to believe that this progression will not proceed forward much the same as it has, the established track record as shown by actual history.

So I disagree that there's a long term relationship between automation and unemployment. Short term, possibly. But certainly not long term.

Click to expand...

Thank you for considering what I've written here, Eo...and for your comments.

I disagree strongly with the part I enlarged. I think things have changed significantly...and I consider the change to be obvious.

You don't...and I respect that.

Rather than try to make the case to those who think there really is no problem...which I suspect will never work...I will continue on with the people who see the problem and who are interested in what "solutions" I have for it.

I hope you stick around and comment, though.

Frank Apisa said:

They definitely are.

And quite honestly...some machines are works of art when it comes to efficiency and ability.

We cannot...or at least, we should not...sell them short.

The notion that steno pools no longer exist, because doing what the steno pool had to do...can be handled by machines that make the people in the steno pool look like dolts.

PERSONAL THING: I write lots of essays and op ed pieces (used to, anyway)...and at one time I used to know the research librarian at three libraries in my area by their first name...and they knew mine. I often would call for a fact that I needed for a paper...and they enjoyed looking stuff up...kinda showing off that they knew were to look for an obscure fact.

TODAY...I can get any of those facts within seconds here on the computer I'm using to write this comment.

The total amount of human labor "saved" by this machine is beyond measure.

Click to expand...

Yep PC can be considered the greatest or in some cases, the worst machines ever created. Time will tell.

WCH said:

Yep PC can be considered the greatest or in some cases, the worst machines ever created. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Yup.

And I suspect the machines will have a different opinion from we humans about whether it is the "greatest" or "worst!"

So it is obvious that you can easily improve the condition of either of those problems (unemployment or less than maximized productivity)—one at the expense of the other; but because of the inverse functional relationship, you cannot improve both at the same time.

Click to expand...

In our economy, jobs, and entire new industries, and new markets, are continually being created.
Just as other jobs, industries, even markets, are phased out.

How does your one-sided conjecture account for that?

Jobs are moving to tech. There is so much open in the field of tech, folks who haven't really engaged in technology will find it hard to understand without experiencing it.
Tech is not removing frontiers, it created a frontier that is near infinite in size and scope. Nearly anything can be digitized, nearly anything therefore, is possible.

Unless humans are near immortal, immune to disease, live in full happiness and harmony, have a pure, clean environment, etc., then there will be jobs. If those jobs are all done by AI, then you're pointing out that people would be unemployed, that would be false. They would not be looking for a job, because they would not have to work, it would all be taken care of (in this fantastic AI/Robotic driven future).

Mach said:

In our economy, jobs, and entire new industries, and new markets, are continually being created.
Just as other jobs, industries, even markets, are phased out.

How does your one-sided conjecture account for that?

Jobs are moving to tech. There is so much open in the field of tech, folks who haven't really engaged in technology will find it hard to understand without experiencing it.
Tech is not removing frontiers, it created a frontier that is near infinite in size and scope. Nearly anything can be digitized, nearly anything therefore, is possible.

Unless humans are near immortal, immune to disease, live in full happiness and harmony, have a pure, clean environment, etc., then there will be jobs. If those jobs are all done by AI, then you're pointing out that people would be unemployed, that would be false. They would not be looking for a job, because they would not have to work, it would all be taken care of (in this fantastic AI/Robotic driven future).

Click to expand...

I have no problem whatever with you thinking the idea that decent paying jobs will soon no longer be available for humans in today's advanced technological age, Mach. You see no problem, or at least no serious problem...and I thank you for sharing that.

Some of us do. I am one of those who do...and I intend to discuss an outside-the-box way of dealing with that perceived problem.

I certainly do not want you to waste your time here, since that is where I am heading.

Frank Apisa said:

In a society as technologically advanced as ours, the problem of “unemployment” and the problem of “how do we maximize productivity” are intimately related—coupled in an inverse functional relationship. By that I mean, as a rule, steps taken to improve one will screw up the other proportionally.

Here’s an example:

There are many jobs machines can do more efficiently, faster, and at less cost than can humans. So all we have to do to improve productivity in those areas is to get rid of the humans and replace them with machines.

As you can see, productivity skyrockets, but so does unemployment! With today’s technology, improving productivity is a very easy problem to solve…so long as you do not care about the increased unemployment it would cause.

Or we can look at that situation from its flip side:

Obviously there are machines that can do most things more efficiently, faster, and at less cost than humans, but let’s get rid of the machines and keep those jobs open for humans to do. They need the jobs.

Here we see employment being created or increased (unemployment lowered), but at a significant cost to productivity. Unemployment also is a fairly easy problem to solve if you do not care about the huge disadvantage to productivity and cost.

So it is obvious that you can easily improve the condition of either of those problems (unemployment or less than maximized productivity)—one at the expense of the other; but because of the inverse functional relationship, you cannot improve both at the same time.

Or so it would seem! (More on that point in the next thread.)

(This is part 4 of the "observations of the human predicament" series I am attempting.)

Click to expand...

Here's my question, and it begins right at the very foundation of this equation.

Why do we need humans to be doing a set amount of work?

Why aren't we using our technological capacity to reduce human work to make human lives easier and less totally consumed by work, rather than as a way to steal their livelihood?

Americans work even more hours than the Japanese -- an average of 47 hours a week. The people saying the country is "lazy" are insane. Americans are the hardest-working people in the developed world, by far. And for what? Do Americans have a better quality of life? No. Americans are the fourth poorest people of a developed country. They have one of the shortest life expectancies. They often go years without vacations, or even taking a day off. They don't even get real healthcare, for their ridiculous amount of labor. What do Americans get out of this?

We know working these kinds of hours is not good for people -- and not good for productivity either. Exhausted, increasingly ill people work inefficiently. Their psychological well-being suffers too, as their time for family and self-fulfillment shrinks. People need time for rest, relaxation, and relationships. And because they don't get much of it, Americans are some of the most depressed, lonely, under-rested people in the world.

That's why we originally cut off the full work week at 40 hours (and many nations have since decreased it further). 40 hours is the point at which productivity begins to suffer. But 30-odd hours is better for mental health.

Why do we need to increase human productivity? Why do we need to continue making a system where living is contingent on humans working unhealthful hours, when we have the ability to decrease human work to everyone's benefit?

Why don't we just... pay people better? Have them work less? So more people can be hired, for fewer hours? It's not as though the sorts of companies that are automating couldn't afford it.

What is wrong with that? Why do people need to work a certain amount that we decided on in the previous century, when the need for them to work is decreasing, and having them work less would make them healthier and happier?

Technology is making a world where it is increasingly possible for people to do what they love or what they're good at or just do some volunteer work, rather than just doing what they have to in order to simply not die. Why aren't we taking advantage of that?

How many people get sick from stress-related disease every year? How many people miss their children growing up? How many people have a talent they never nurtured, because it didn't pay enough or they couldn't afford the schooling required to pursue it?

Why is any of that necessary in a world with increasing automation when these people work for companies making billions?

Why is it a choice between human survival and automation? Why can't we use automation to free people from working insane, underpaid hours at dangerous jobs they don't care about, and that we don't need them to do anyway?

Frank Apisa said:

I have no problem whatever with you thinking the idea that decent paying jobs will soon no longer be available for humans in today's advanced technological age, Mach. You see no problem, or at least no serious problem...and I thank you for sharing that.

Click to expand...

Who wrote "soon"? It's a hypothetical in some distant future, that may not even be possible (we make destroy all life on earth, be hit by a meteor, etc.)

Some of us do. I am one of those who do...and I intend to discuss an outside-the-box way of dealing with that perceived problem.

Click to expand...

But in your experience, are you really claiming that you have the supernatural ability to understand the way, way, way different future? You don't. You, like all of us, likely can't see beyond a decade or two.
So much will have changed that anything you conceive of now is largely irrelevant.

For example, you think that means "there will no longer be decent paying jobs for humans". That's false.

We are imagining an ultra-advanced AI post singularity society. In this case, if it is stable and humans coexist happily you can have nearly any job you want, in nearly any capacity. The opposite of what you claim. If money is not relevant in the way it is today, why would "decent paying" be important? It would not. Things change, it's natural to want to avoid it when our older brains are use to something else. But fortunately our kids adapt without a second thought.

Have you read any Iain Banks (culture series, sci-fi books)? His entire setting is just that. And humans have no issues getting jobs and being productive, or artistic, etc., and they work with AI as part of their society...or not if they don't like them.

You think advanced AI results in job loss. That's small thinking at best.
Advanced AI results in nearly supernatural means with which to control reality. God-like (relative to us today).
What does a god need of a decent wage job?

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Here's my question, and it begins right at the very foundation of this equation.

Why do we need humans to be doing a constant amount of work?

Why aren't we using our technological capacity to reduce human work to make human lives easier and less totally consumed by work, rather than as a way to steal their livelihood?

Americans work even more hours than the Japanese -- an average of 47 hours a week. The people saying the country is "lazy" are insane. Americans are the hardest-working people in the developed world, by far. And for what? Do Americans have a better quality of life? No. Americans are the fourth poorest people of a developed country. They have one of the shortest life expectancies. They often go years without vacations, or even taking a day off. They don't even get real healthcare, for their ridiculous amount of labor. What do Americans get out of this?

We know working these kinds of hours is not good for people -- and not good for productivity either. Exhausted, increasingly ill people work inefficiently. Their psychological well-being suffers too, as their time for family and self-fulfillment shrinks. Americans are some of the most depressed, lonely, under-rested people in the world.

That's why we originally cut off the full work week at 40 hours (and many nations have since decreased it further). 40 hours is the point at which productivity begins to suffer. But 30-odd hours is better for mental health.

Why do we need to increase human productivity? Why do we need to continue making a system where living is contingent on humans working unhealthful hours, when we have the ability to decrease human work to everyone's benefit?

Why don't we just... pay people better? Have them work less? So more people can be hired, for fewer hours?

What is wrong with that? Why do people need to work more, or a set amount, when the need for them to work is decreasing, and having them work less would make them healthier and happier?

Technology is making a world where it is increasingly possible for people to do what they love or what they're good at or just do some volunteer work, rather than doing what they have to in order to simply not die. Why aren't we taking advantage of that?

Click to expand...

How'd that work? Say, like in France.

France's*35-Hour Week Has Done Its Job - Bloomberg View

Oops. Not so well then. Even socialistic France is dumping it.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Here's my question, and it begins right at the very foundation of this equation.

Why do we need humans to be doing a set amount of work?

Click to expand...

We don't...other than that using todays standards of economics, people have to do work in order to "earn a living."

Why aren't we using our technological capacity to reduce human work to make human lives easier and less totally consumed by work, rather than as a way to steal their livelihood?

Click to expand...

Because we are idiots for not doing so.

That obviously is where I am heading...but I gotta do it slowly in a step-by-step fashion, because many people simply cannot follow the reasoning.

Americans work even more hours than the Japanese -- an average of 47 hours a week. The people saying the country is "lazy" are insane. Americans are the hardest-working people in the developed world, by far. And for what? Do Americans have a better quality of life? No. Americans are the fourth poorest people of a developed country. They have one of the shortest life expectancies. They often go years without vacations, or even taking a day off. They don't even get real healthcare, for their ridiculous amount of labor. What do Americans get out of this?

We know working these kinds of hours is not good for people -- and not good for productivity either. Exhausted, increasingly ill people work inefficiently. Their psychological well-being suffers too, as their time for family and self-fulfillment shrinks. People need time for rest, relaxation, and relationships. And because they don't get much of it, Americans are some of the most depressed, lonely, under-rested people in the world.

That's why we originally cut off the full work week at 40 hours (and many nations have since decreased it further). 40 hours is the point at which productivity begins to suffer. But 30-odd hours is better for mental health.

Why do we need to increase human productivity? Why do we need to continue making a system where living is contingent on humans working unhealthful hours, when we have the ability to decrease human work to everyone's benefit?

Why don't we just... pay people better? Have them work less? So more people can be hired, for fewer hours? It's not as though the sorts of companies that are automating couldn't afford it.

What is wrong with that? Why do people need to work a certain amount that we decided on in the previous century, when the need for them to work is decreasing, and having them work less would make them healthier and happier?

Technology is making a world where it is increasingly possible for people to do what they love or what they're good at or just do some volunteer work, rather than just doing what they have to in order to simply not die. Why aren't we taking advantage of that?

How many people get sick from stress-related disease every year? How many people miss their children growing up? How many people have a talent they never nurtured, because it didn't pay enough or they couldn't afford the schooling required to pursue it?

Why is any of that necessary in a world with increasing automation when these people work for companies making billions?

Why is it a choice between human survival and automation? Why can't we use automation to free people from working insane, underpaid hours at dangerous jobs they don't care about, and that we don't need them to do anyway?

Click to expand...

Stick around for the nest thread. Lots of this will be dealt with from my perspective...which probably will be in agreement with where you are on the issue.

eohrnberger said:

How'd that work? Say, like in France.

France's*35-Hour Week Has Done Its Job - Bloomberg View

Oops. Not so well then. Even socialistic France is dumping it.

Click to expand...

...And when it became the first of its kind, the NHS was a mess. Today, it is the highest-rated public health service in the world, with overwhelming majority support. It has problems, like everything does, but it does its job better than any other system in the world, and every public health nation on earth does it better than the US.

I am not surprised the first attempt is failing, given that they're stupidly trying to do it in an economy that places no value on employees, and thus no value on whether their wages are livable. It can't be that way, for this to work.

But there is no reason it has to be that way. We can change that any time we want.

Mach said:

Who wrote "soon"? It's a hypothetical in some distant future, that may not even be possible (we make destroy all life on earth, be hit by a meteor, etc.)


But in your experience, are you really claiming that you have the supernatural ability to understand the way, way, way different future? You don't. You, like all of us, likely can't see beyond a decade or two.
So much will have changed that anything you conceive of now is largely irrelevant.

For example, you think that means "there will no longer be decent paying jobs for humans". That's false.

We are imagining an ultra-advanced AI post singularity society. In this case, if it is stable and humans coexist happily you can have nearly any job you want, in nearly any capacity. The opposite of what you claim. If money is not relevant in the way it is today, why would "decent paying" be important? It would not. Things change, it's natural to want to avoid it when our older brains are use to something else. But fortunately our kids adapt without a second thought.

Have you read any Iain Banks (culture series, sci-fi books)? His entire setting is just that. And humans have no issues getting jobs and being productive, or artistic, etc., and they work with AI as part of their society...or not if they don't like them.

You think advanced AI results in job loss. That's small thinking at best.
Advanced AI results in nearly supernatural means with which to control reality. God-like (relative to us today).
What does a god need of a decent wage job?

Click to expand...

Hey Mach...have you seen any decent movies lately?

Frank Apisa said:

Good comments, GS. I thank you for them.

Please realize that I was saying in areas where machines can replace machines...rather than something more akin to "replace all humans with machines."

We'll probably never do that.

My point is that where machines can be used...they normally will out-perform humans...and productivity will rise. But the "problem" is that fewer jobs is the result. And conversely, keeping jobs open for humans rather than replacing them with the more productive machines...results in less productivity.

Click to expand...

In economic terms, "efficiency in productivity" comes down to the production of goods and services with the best combination of maximum output for minimal cost. Just in that context over the long term it makes sense to look for machines to do what humans do. Out-perform being the key factor I would agree.

OrphanSlug said:

In economic terms, "efficiency in productivity" comes down to the production of goods and services with the best combination of maximum output for minimal cost. Just in that context over the long term it makes sense to look for machines to do what humans do. Out-perform being the key factor I would agree.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point.

Not every time, as I am sure you will agree.

No machine will ever make a hand-made silk tie; it is unlikely that any machine will ever serve up a drink with the same sympathy and panache that a decent bartender brings to the occasion; and the TLC so necessary in a skilled, efficient nurse is gonna be tough to duplicate in a machine.

But for the vast majority of jobs for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised, the machine will win out handily in competition with the humans in a productivity contest.

Frank Apisa said:

In a society as technologically advanced as ours, the problem of “unemployment” and the problem of “how do we maximize productivity” are intimately related—coupled in an inverse functional relationship. By that I mean, as a rule, steps taken to improve one will screw up the other proportionally.

Click to expand...

The evidence does not support this conclusion.

1) Automation often frees up people to do more complex, skill-based tasks.

2) Automation was increasing from the 1970s through today; during that time, LFPR went straight up until 2001, and has started falling. Similarly, productivity has been on a straight upward trajectory since the 1970s (if not earlier). I.e. there are no real correlations between:

• Increased automation, and either unemployment rates or LFPR
• Increased offshoring, and either unemployment rates or LFPR
• Increased productivity, and either unemployment rates or LFPR

3) Many jobs will not be automated any time soon. Most of the low-hanging fruit is harvested by now.

4) Despite the rise of automation, there is still a role for people who actually want hand-crafted, highly skilled products and services. We've been in the era of assembly line production for over 100 years, and you can still find lots of hand-made goods, that requires actual human work. We've had fast food for over half a century, yet people still want food cooked by humans, both in restaurants and catered.

Visbek said:

The evidence does not support this conclusion.

1) Automation often frees up people to do more complex, skill-based tasks.

2) Automation was increasing from the 1970s through today; during that time, LFPR went straight up until 2001, and has started falling. Similarly, productivity has been on a straight upward trajectory since the 1970s (if not earlier). I.e. there are no real correlations between:

• Increased automation, and either unemployment rates or LFPR
• Increased offshoring, and either unemployment rates or LFPR
• Increased productivity, and either unemployment rates or LFPR

3) Many jobs will not be automated any time soon. Most of the low-hanging fruit is harvested by now.

4) Despite the rise of automation, there is still a role for people who actually want hand-crafted, highly skilled products and services. We've been in the era of assembly line production for over 100 years, and you can still find lots of hand-made goods, that requires actual human work. We've had fast food for over half a century, yet people still want food cooked by humans, both in restaurants and catered.

Click to expand...

Agree with this.

I think the main problem with the OP is that it assumes a simplified inverse linear relationship between 'number of jobs for humans' and 'number of jobs for machines'.

An increase in one doesn't necessarily lead to a decrease in another, it's not as straightforward as that.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

Here's my question, and it begins right at the very foundation of this equation.

Why do we need humans to be doing a set amount of work?

Why aren't we using our technological capacity to reduce human work to make human lives easier and less totally consumed by work, rather than as a way to steal their livelihood?

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you, but the answer to yor questions isn't a difficult one to come to. It's because companies exist to make money, not to improve the human condition.

'Making lives better' is only ever a byproduct of capitalism, never the main goal. It has given us plumbing, computers, transport, safety measures etc etc etc. All things that have improved our lives, but only as a byproduct of it's primary goal, making money.

The only way that capitalistic system will ever actively try to improve lives (shorter work weeks etc) is if it can become profitable. In lieu of that we have to rely on altruism (see: Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Elon Musk, etc) which works but is limited in scope or think about introducing segments of socialism, which would at least try towards improving peoples lives because it's essentially a company in which we're all shareholders. Unfortunately it comes with it's own slew of issues.

When I was a teenager I worked with my grandfather putting in a cast Iron sewer line in the basement for another bathroom upstairs. It took us a couple of days caulking each joint every 5' with lead and oakum. It was difficult to cut and fit and the weight was terrible hanging it overhead. The next time I piped the sewer was with my dad and he was going to use this new product called PVC. We did a similar amount of piping in a couple of hours instead of 2 days and the cost was only a 1/4 the price of cast iron. My grandfather stopped by to see the new PVC and shook his head saying this would end the plumbing industry. We were going to put most plumbers out of work and people might also start doing the work themselves.

The exact opposite happened. It made adding that second bathroom affordable for more people putting more plumbers to work. The cheaper more efficient PVC increased the amount of plumbing in the average home employing even more plumbers. Everyone wins. People can now afford a multi-bathroom home and it takes more plumbers to build these homes.

I think replacing people with machinery should not be a problem for employment. We are better off with a backhoe digging a hole instead of a dozen men with picks and shovels. Getting more work done with less human effort should only bring up the quality of life, make things more affordable, and open the door for more bigger and better things.

PIPEWRENCH said:

When I was a teenager I worked with my grandfather putting in a cast Iron sewer line in the basement for another bathroom upstairs. It took us a couple of days caulking each joint every 5' with lead and oakum. It was difficult to cut and fit and the weight was terrible hanging it overhead. The next time I piped the sewer was with my dad and he was going to use this new product called PVC. We did a similar amount of piping in a couple of hours instead of 2 days and the cost was only a 1/4 the price of cast iron. My grandfather stopped by to see the new PVC and shook his head saying this would end the plumbing industry. We were going to put most plumbers out of work and people might also start doing the work themselves.

The exact opposite happened. It made adding that second bathroom affordable for more people putting more plumbers to work. The cheaper more efficient PVC increased the amount of plumbing in the average home employing even more plumbers. Everyone wins. People can now afford a multi-bathroom home and it takes more plumbers to build these homes.

I think replacing people with machinery should not be a problem for employment. We are better off with a backhoe digging a hole instead of a dozen men with picks and shovels. Getting more work done with less human effort should only bring up the quality of life, make things more affordable, and open the door for more bigger and better things.

Click to expand...

Okay...another vote for "There is no problem."

Frank Apisa said:

Okay...another vote for "There is no problem."

Click to expand...

Without question.
My great grandfathers first job was walking mules pulling coal carts out of the mines. He was eight years old. I still remember my grandfather telling me stories from the good old days. The world did not end when that job was eliminated.