a column by Mitali Das for VOX: CEPR’s Policy Portal
Evidence that routinisation lies behind labour market polarisation has been documented for many developed economies, but less is known about its impact in emerging markets.
This column draws on national censuses and labour surveys for 160 countries between 1960 and 2015 to argue that although large-scale labour market dislocation is not imminent, emerging markets are becoming increasingly exposed to routinisation – and thus labour market polarisation – from the long-term effects of structural transformation and the onshoring of routine-intensive jobs.
Continue reading
Showing posts with label labour_market_polarisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labour_market_polarisation. Show all posts
Monday, 19 November 2018
Sunday, 24 July 2016
Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation
an article by David H Autor (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts) published in Journal of Economic Prospects Volume 29 Number 3 (Summer 2015)
Abstract
In this essay, I begin by identifying the reasons that automation has not wiped out a majority of jobs over the decades and centuries. Automation does indeed substitute for labor as it is typically intended to do. However, automation also complements labor, raises output in ways that leads to higher demand for labor, and interacts with adjustments in labor supply. Journalists and even expert commentators tend to overstate the extent of machine substitution for human labor and ignore the strong complementarities between automation and labor that increase productivity, raise earnings, and augment demand for labor. Changes in technology do alter the types of jobs available and what those jobs pay.
In the last few decades, one noticeable change has been a "polarization" of the labor market, in which wage gains went disproportionately to those at the top and at the bottom of the income and skill distribution, not to those in the middle; however, I also argue, this polarization is unlikely to continue very far into future.
The final section of this paper reflects on how recent and future advances in artificial intelligence and robotics should shape our thinking about the likely trajectory of occupational change and employment growth. I argue that the interplay between machine and human comparative advantage allows computers to substitute for workers in performing routine, codifiable tasks while amplifying the comparative advantage of workers in supplying problem-solving skills, adaptability, and creativity.
JEL Codes: E24, J22, J23, J24, J31, O31
Full text (PDF 29pp)
Abstract
In this essay, I begin by identifying the reasons that automation has not wiped out a majority of jobs over the decades and centuries. Automation does indeed substitute for labor as it is typically intended to do. However, automation also complements labor, raises output in ways that leads to higher demand for labor, and interacts with adjustments in labor supply. Journalists and even expert commentators tend to overstate the extent of machine substitution for human labor and ignore the strong complementarities between automation and labor that increase productivity, raise earnings, and augment demand for labor. Changes in technology do alter the types of jobs available and what those jobs pay.
In the last few decades, one noticeable change has been a "polarization" of the labor market, in which wage gains went disproportionately to those at the top and at the bottom of the income and skill distribution, not to those in the middle; however, I also argue, this polarization is unlikely to continue very far into future.
The final section of this paper reflects on how recent and future advances in artificial intelligence and robotics should shape our thinking about the likely trajectory of occupational change and employment growth. I argue that the interplay between machine and human comparative advantage allows computers to substitute for workers in performing routine, codifiable tasks while amplifying the comparative advantage of workers in supplying problem-solving skills, adaptability, and creativity.
JEL Codes: E24, J22, J23, J24, J31, O31
Full text (PDF 29pp)
Friday, 3 July 2015
Sharing Risks of Labour Market Transitions: Towards a System of Employment Insurance
an article by Günther Schmid (Social Science Research Centre Berlin (WZB), Free University of Berlin) published in British Journal of Industrial Relations Volume 53 Issue 1 (March 2015)
Abstract
The increasing polarization of the labour market is closely related to the spread of non-standard employment relationships that largely results from poor risk management of critical transitions over the life course.
The question, therefore, arises whether labour market regulation, in particular unemployment insurance, is still properly designed for the new world of work.
This article argues for an extension of unemployment insurance towards a system of employment insurance by summarizing the concept of transitional labour markets, indicating the risks that challenge current and future labour markets, laying the theoretical groundwork, and discussing the main features of an employment insurance system.
Abstract
The increasing polarization of the labour market is closely related to the spread of non-standard employment relationships that largely results from poor risk management of critical transitions over the life course.
The question, therefore, arises whether labour market regulation, in particular unemployment insurance, is still properly designed for the new world of work.
This article argues for an extension of unemployment insurance towards a system of employment insurance by summarizing the concept of transitional labour markets, indicating the risks that challenge current and future labour markets, laying the theoretical groundwork, and discussing the main features of an employment insurance system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
