A New Way To Understand Automation

We speak with one of the leading scholars of automation. [View this email online]( [Planet Money]( Economist vs Machine --------------------------------------------------------------- by Greg Rosalsky For one of the most distinguished critics of automation, MIT economist Daron Acemoglu has been, ironically, cranking out research on the subject lately like he’s a machine. He and his co-author Pascual Restrepo have produced so many studies on the subject that he couldn’t tell us how many they’ve done. “I’ve lost count,” he says. Their conveyer belt of research has been spitting out some startling facts. They find, for instance, that [each new industrial robot killed, on average, 3.3 jobs]( in America between 1993 and 2007. Last week, Acemoglu and Restrepo released [a new study]( that suggests as much as 70 percent of the rise of inequality in America since 1980 is due to machines devouring jobs previously done by middle- and low-income workers. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images More than just quantifying the past effects of automation, Acemoglu and his colleagues have been developing a new framework to understand it going forward. People often talk about technology as if it has just one effect, leading us closer to an automated world, which, depending on where you sit, is either the glittering utopia of abundance seen in Star Trek or the dismal dystopia seen in The Terminator. The Acemoglu framework adds richness and complexity to the picture. Automation, Acemoglu says, has multiple effects. The first is the one everyone is scared of: the destruction of jobs. Acemoglu calls this “the displacement effect.” This is the cost of automation. But automation also has benefits: it has “a productivity effect” that makes industry more capable of producing lots of cheaper stuff. This puts more money in the pockets of both companies and consumers. Consumers pay less for stuff, which gives them more money to spend on new things. That makes companies more profitable and allows them to hire more workers to provide those things. And workers can benefit in other ways, as the technologies causing automation often come along with all sorts of new jobs for humans to do, like being a robot technician or a software coder. The economists call these job-creating benefits of new technology “the reinstatement effect.” The question Acemoglu and Restrepo have sought to figure out as automation has accelerated is which of these effects tend to dominate. In [a study]( published in 2019, they crunched reams of data to come up with an answer. Between 1947 and 1987, they find, the productivity and reinstatement effects of new technologies were so large that they were able to more than make up for the displacement effects. “During the four decades following World War II there was plenty of automation,” they write, “but this was accompanied by the introduction of new tasks… in both manufacturing and the rest of the economy that counterbalanced the adverse labor demand consequences of automation.” Between 1987 and 2017, however, they found that the displacement effect of new technologies far outweighed their productivity and reinstatement effects. New machines and software have been killing old jobs faster than they’ve been creating new ones, they say, which helps explain why so many workers are getting left behind. There are a few potential reasons for the tide turning on automation. One is that today’s technologies create fewer new jobs than past technologies. Think Instagram vs Kodak. Kodak used to employ [tens of thousands]( of Americans, including many blue-collar workers, to manufacture cameras and make, develop, and distribute film. Instagram employs far fewer workers overall and far fewer blue-collar workers in particular. Another reason technological change may be less great today is that, unfortunately, the computer revolution, at least so far, has had pretty lackluster productivity effects compared to previous industrial revolutions. This was one of the central insights of Northwestern economist Robert Gordon’s book, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, a few years back. Productivity growth, or the ability to generate more products in less time, is the key to generating greater prosperity, and the lack of much productivity growth these days is a problem for the creation of new, good-paying jobs. Acemoglu and Restrepo call a lot of the inventions hitting the market these days “so-so” technologies. “So-so technologies are those that create displacement, but they don’t really improve productivity,” Acemoglu says. He gave the examples of self-checkout kiosks at grocery stores and automated customer service software. Companies use these so they don’t have to pay people to do the work, but these technologies don’t really do the job better. They mostly just drive us crazy, forcing customers to do the work themselves with the help of machines instead of paying people to help them with it. Acemoglu argues that much of the automation we’ve seen in recent years is “excessive.” Businesses are using machines to kill jobs without generating significantly lower production costs, he says, while also imposing all the costs on society that comes with greater unemployment and lower wages. Businesses don’t take into account these social costs when making the decision to automate away jobs (economists call these social costs “negative externalities”). Acemoglu says it's not just business that's to blame. Companies may be guilty of excessively automating because they don’t factor in all the social costs it creates. But governments are also culpable. In the US, the government, through the tax code, is actually giving companies extra encouragement to automate jobs. That’s because [it taxes capital at a lower rate than labor]( and provides all sorts of tax write offs for purchasing machines, software, and equipment. Acemoglu hopes the research they continue to produce will get policymakers to take a new, smarter approach to technological change. With growing fears about Artificial Intelligence and other technologies in the pipeline, leaders are at last beginning to listen. Last year, Acemolgu [testified before Congress]( and urged them to reform the tax code, invest more in R&D, and play a bigger role in directing the future of technology. Acemoglu may be doing research like a machine, but he’s looking out for us humans. Not subscribed? [Subscribe to this newsletter.]( Want to spread the love? [Share the web-version of this newsletter on social media](. Craving more content? [Listen to our podcasts.]( --------------------------------------------------------------- Newsletter continues after sponsor message --------------------------------------------------------------- On Our Podcasts --------------------------------------------------------------- Predictions! — Two forecasters predict the future of the U.S. economy — and promise to come back on the show to see who was right, and who was wrong. [Listen here]( How Uncle Jamie Broke Jeopardy (Update) — James Holzhauer took a math degree, a gambling career, and a buzzer, and turned it into a fortune on a game show. [Listen here]( Why Is The Fed So Boring? — Fed Chair Jerome Powell will speak tomorrow. His words will likely be boring, but the financial markets are watching carefully. Such words seem to have serious implications. Why is that? The Indicator has the story. [Listen here]( Bluer Skies Ahead — Covid-19 has brought so much loss and hardship, but there was at least one pleasant surprise for Beijing — less hazy skies and air pollution. In this episode of The Indicator, the concept of experience goods. How you don't know the value of something until you actually experience it. And how in Beijing there were blue skies during the COVID lockdown. [Listen here]( Also on The Indicator: [Millennial Myth-Busters: Housing Edition]( and [Is Movie Night Back?]( --------------------------------------------------------------- Stream your local NPR station. Visit NPR.org to find your local station stream. --------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think of today's email? We'd love to hear your thoughts, questions and feedback: [planetmoney@npr.org](mailto:planetmoney@npr.org?subject=Newsletter%20Feedback) Enjoying this newsletter? Forward to a friend! They can [sign up here](. Looking for more great content? [Check out all of our newsletter offerings]( — including Daily News, Politics, Health and more! You received this message because you're subscribed to Planet Money emails. This email was sent by National Public Radio, Inc., 1111 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20002 [Unsubscribe]( | [Privacy Policy]( [NPR logo]