According to a CBS article by Mike Sugarman, new technology nowadays might actually decrease the availability of jobs instead of increasing them. Since the networking and cloud technology has expanded to vast proportions, companies can outsource to other companies for services like server management instead of buying their own servers and hiring their own employees to manage it. Sugarman suggests that some of the jobs eliminated by the recession will never resurface as technology plays a larger role in businesses and takes over some of the previous human-necessary tasks.
We have learned that supply changes based upon several factors, one of them, technology. We know that technology will increase the amount of goods / services supplied at any given input because of increased efficiency. But could technology actually decrease demand as well in some cases?
In the case that an increasing amount of technology equates to a decreasing number of jobs, demand of good / services might actually decrease as overall income decreases. So is technology really as good as many make it sound? Comment away...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Kore's post brings up a very relevant debate. Many people see technology as the way of the future and advancements and such, but does technology have any negatives? There are obvious benefits associated with technology. To name just one, advancements have made national and international communications possible with a few clicks of buttons, promoting business and cooperation on a global scale. However, could technology's efficiency have adverse effects on human labor? A computer or machine can do the work of ten individuals in half the time, thus reducing the need for businesses or firms to hire as many people. I think in general, technology can be beneficial, but we should keep a watch on the amount and extent to which it is employed.
I was about to comment that since there would be fewer jobs, the incomes of those still employed would increase because of their highly advanced human capital which cannot yet be replaced by robots and computers (so far, it seems like these machines have only taken over manual labor jobs, such as automaking) - these employees would retain their economic value. However, on second thought, I think companies would have much more bargaining power over potential employees who are desperate for a job and are willing to earn a salary less than what they deserve, spelling even further doom for human labor. I think both government and industry ought to devise a regulated way to optimize number of jobs and efficiency through growing technology.
Post a Comment