A questão é uma velha questão: de como a automatização se repercute no emprego. Mas tem um aspeto novo: como a informatização do processamento da informação potencia os efeitos da automatização de trabalhos fora da área fabril, do domínio de profissões altamente especializadas. Isso tem implicações sociais incontornáveis quanto à educação, à desigualdade, à integração, ..... A experiência histórica demonstrou desde o início da Revolução Industrial que a automatização nunca se traduziu na diminuição, muito pelo contrário, do volume do emprego agregado, independentemente, no entanto, dos processos de ajustamento para as pessoas deslocadas (por esses processos) poderem ser dolorosos (caso dos tecelões no início do século XIX....) e marginalizadores. Questiona-se é se, no momento atual, esses processos não possam ser potenciados de modo negativo por outras evoluções sociais recentes.
As referências abaixo referem-se à discussão da questão iniciada por Krugman. A última não se insere nesse debate mas contextualiza-o.
Falling Demand for Brains? Paul Krugman - NYTimes.com: [....] Anyway, I decided to write the piece around a conceit: that information technology would end up reducing, not increasing, the demand for highly educated workers, because a lot of what highly educated workers do could actually be replaced by sophisticated information processing — indeed, replaced more easily than a lot of manual labor. [....] So here’s the question: is it starting to happen?
Degrees and Dollars | Paul Krugman| NYTimes.com: "It is a truth universally acknowledged that education is the key to economic success. Everyone knows that the jobs of the future will require ever higher levels of skill. That’s why, in an appearance Friday with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, President Obama declared that “If we want more good news on the jobs front then we’ve got to make more investments in education.” But what everyone knows is wrong. [....]
Technology and employment: Pity useless men | The Economist:Are people less necessary to the operation of the economy than they used to be? I don't think so. As far as I know, people currently represent 100% of final demand; machines aren't yet out there purchasing goods for their own consumption. Without people there is no economy. That's as true as it's always been. The problem is that people are less necessary on the supply side but as important as ever on the demand side. How could this happen? There are several potential explanations [....]
Yglesias » The Yoga Instructor Economy: That said, this is why I’ve been saying that yoga instructors have the job of the future [....]This is where I think education does get back into the picture. Most of these are jobs that require some skills. Personal services generally exist on a spectrum between “things a person might hire someone else to do because it’s a pain in the ass” and “things a person might hire someone else to do because it’s difficult to do it well.” You hire a maid because you don’t want to clean the toilet. You go to Komi because you can’t cook as well as Johnny Monis. There’s more money and prestige to be had as you move up the maid-Monis spectrum and there’s a need for some kind of mechanism to help people move up it. That sounds like “education” to me, though not necessarily the kind of education we’re handing out.
Did the Singularity Already Happen? - Grasping Reality with a Sharp Beak: We have gone from having 80% of our males working outside-the-home as farmers and farm laborers down to 2%. We have gone from having a world in which nearly every female past puberty spends her life effectively chained to her children, her kitchen, or her loom to one in which I cannot think of a house I have been in in a decade that had a loom. We have already gone through the great transformation by which the general business of life--growing and processing our food, building our shelter, weaving our clothes, and telling ourselves stories for information and entertainment--has been extroardinarily, comprehensively automated. And yet we have found things to do. [....] In short, the automation revolution already happened. And we adjusted.
Technology and employment: What to do with all these cheap humans? | The Economist: So one potential diagnosis of the situation is that the unemployed are simply demanding too much compensation. An alternative take is Paul Krugman's: workers are less able to capture the gains to capital than they used to be, and so they can no longer afford to buy services from each other at inflated prices.
I previously cited Mr Cowen's remark that increased worker bargaining power and higher negotiated wages would simply accelerate the process of worker replacement. But maybe it's the case that if workers aren't able to capture some of the returns to scarce factors, then a highly unstable level of inequality results.
Book Chat: Inequality and Political Power - NYTimes.com: In one of our recent Book Chats, Tyler Cowen offered his diagnosis for slow-growing income: a slowdown in innovation. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have a different diagnosis. In their recent book, “Winner-Take-All Politics,” they point to government policies that have helped the affluent at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
Q. A common argument, especially from the political left, is that a change in the power dynamic between employers and employees is a central reason for the rise in inequality. Your book explores this theme in detail. I’m certainly open to the argument, but I think it often lacks sufficient granularity. That is, how exactly have deregulation, the decline of unions and a more business-friendly judiciary caused wages to stagnate for many workers? How have these changes led to an explosion of incomes in finance? A growth in the college premium? The connections are not entirely obvious.
"- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário