Mechanizatio in the Workforce

Labor Saving Devices in the Workforce
Jacob Hanners
Southern New Hampshire University

Unemployment is a topic of interest from private dialogue to an increasingly common discussion among members of governments from around the world. This problem plagues many people causing an endless debate of its true origin. While economists agree that there is no one single factor that causes unemployment, many individuals, such as former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, have often turned to blaming the implementation of labor saving devices and the mechanization of the workforce; i.e., using technology to replace the human element involved with labor (Good Reads, 2014). While the assumption is mechanization destroys the human element in the workforce resulting in higher unemployment, there is a strong historical precedent suggesting the unemployment rate has not been affected by the implementation of labor saving devices or the mechanization of labor processes.
The concerns expressed today by those making the claims that mechanization will result in higher unemployment is not a new idea. One could look back to the industry of textiles in England in the 1700s and see the same concerns among the average worker (Hazlitt, 1962-1979). Richard Arkwright invented cotton-spinning machinery in 1760 with the purpose of making the manufacturing of textiles a more efficient process. At the time, there was an estimated 5,200 spinners in England using spinning wheels in the textile industry and 2,700 weavers making 7,900 people involved with the production of cotton textiles. The initial belief of the workers was that the new cotton spinning machinery would automate the majority of the process and result in mass unemployment. The fear stemming from this idea resulted in workers rioting. In protest of their implementation, some of the machinery was destroyed. Despite the uprising, the new style of equipment was still used. Nevertheless, workers still held strong to the idea that they would eventually be unemployed and replaced. However, a parliamentary inquiry in 1787 showed that 320,000 people were now involved in the production of textiles as opposed to the 7,900 that had been employed before the invention and implementation of these machines. That is a 4,400 percent increase in the number of workers in the textile industry as a result from these machines (Hazlitt, 1962-1979). One could try to ignore this evidence, stating that it is antiquated and not relevant to today’s workforce due to more technological advances that have been made, but this would ignore the principle illustrated by this example. The machines made the production of textiles more efficient in that now factories were able to produce higher quantities with the same, if not better, quality. This resulted in an increase in supply and a decrease in cost, making the demand for the finished product grow; thus expanding the industry.
The example of the textile industry is not the only evidence supporting this idea. The agriculture industry has always been one of the largest industries in America. In the early years of America, many individuals farmed as a means of a survival as opposed to farming as a business. As the population grew though, agriculture and farming became a lucrative and large-scale market requiring many people, animals, and hours dedicated to the job. Eventually, the need for more efficient and productive tools such as plows, cotton gins, reapers, and threshers became necessary. This actually opened up a new job market involving the manufacturing of these labor saving devices causing jobs to be created in the manufacturing industry (Moore, 2008).
One could still try to ignore the evidence provided in examples from 1700s textiles and 1800s agriculture when speaking on this subject. However, in modern times the computer is possibly the most revolutionary labor saving device being used today. If the idea is true that increased unemployment is linked to labor saving devices, then the accountant should have become obsolete with the introduction of the computer. However, the projected job growth for accountants from 2012 to 2020 is 15.7 percent (Gay, 2014). This is a faster rate of growth than most other professions despite being an industry that relies almost entirely on the use of labor saving devices such as computers, software such as Excel and QuickBooks, and hardware such as a mouse and keyboard. Not only are jobs created for the purpose of manufacturing computers, but thousands more are created to develop software for computers. For example, Microsoft, a company that would not exist if not for computers, employs 100,932 people (Microsoft, 2014). Apple, another company that would not exist if not for computers, has 598,500 people either employed or supported by them (Apple Inc., 2014). Those two companies alone account for almost three quarters of a million jobs. Those jobs would not exist if not for the labor saving device that is the computer being invented and embraced.
To further prove the point that labor saving devices do not result in a decrease in employment, one would be wise to look at the unemployment figures of the 19th century in America. During this time, great technological advances were being made. In 1920, the unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, while as recent as 1999 the unemployment rate was only 4.2 percent (Pearson Education, 2013). The unemployment rate has risen and fallen with no tie to the implementation of labor saving devices. It would also be wise to take into consideration that while the unemployment rate has stayed in the same range, the population grew by 196,596,813 people from 1900 to 1999 (Wendell Cox Consultancy, 2001). In other words, over that period, enough jobs were created to account for the increase in population. If the idea that labor saving devices eliminated jobs was true, one would have to assume that the unemployment rate would consistently rise as the years progressed. Furthermore, the amount of jobs that would be eliminated due to mechanization and with the additional people added to the workforce due to population growth would also result in higher unemployment. This has not been the case.
The idea that mechanization causes higher unemployment is based off an unprincipled idea that labor saving devices are anything other than tools people use to accomplish a task in an easier, more efficient way. Before complex machines, simple tools were used for the same reason that complex machines are used today. Native Americans used arrowheads and tomahawks for the purpose of more efficiently hunting and cutting materials (Indians.org, 1995-2014). Albeit a simple tool, the arrowhead was a labor saving device used for the day-to-day activities of the Native Americans. In that same vein of thought, no one complains that the nail gun put people out of the business of building homes or that the saw eliminated jobs in the forestry industry, yet both of these are examples of labor saving devices.
The one issue that has yet to be addressed is whether the same workers are used to operate new labor saving devices being implemented or if new workers replace the old ones. Not much research has been done on this since it would be logistically impossible for economists to track each working individual in the country to see his or her plight in reference to new machinery being implemented. However, the question of whether or not an existing worker is replaced at a job seems to rest on the idea that if one individual loses his or her job, that loss is greater in impact than another individual gaining a job. From a completely objective standpoint, if a new machine was put in the workplace that led to individuals getting jobs manufacturing the new machines, individuals getting a job operating the new machines, consumers getting a discounted price due to an increase in the quantity of a finished product, and retailers getting more customers due to the discounted prices; a larger number of individuals would be positively impacted by the implementation of the labor saving device than would be negatively impacted by one individual losing his or her job (Hazlitt, 1962-1979). This is not to say that it is not a tragedy to see an individual lose a job. The point illustrated is that one individual’s loss should not be considered more significant than multiple individuals’ gains. There is also nothing indicating that the individual losing the job would not be able to find employment in the same industry or even at the same company. The company could choose to move the worker into another department or even train the worker on how to operate the new machinery. It would be unfair to say that the only possible outcome is that the individual would lose his or her job.
In conclusion, from the textile industry in the 1700s, to today’s automation in accounting, there has been no decrease, and a very significant increase, in employment. To continue with the typical rhetoric warning against the implementation of labor saving devices and to ignore all statistical evidence and the principles of supply and demand only serves the purpose of causing further debate that ignores the real reasons unemployment may increase. It perpetuates a fear of new technology that could result in higher employment and better working conditions for the individuals making up the workforce.

References
Apple Inc. (2014). Creating Jobs Through Innovation. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Apple: http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/
Gay, C. (2014). Best Business Jobs Accountant. (U.S. News & World Report LP) Retrieved January 19, 2014, from US News: http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/accountant
Good Reads. (2014). Eleanor Roosevelt. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/372147-we-have-reached-a-point-today-where-labor-saving-devices-are
Hazlitt, H. (1962-1979). Economics in One Lesson. In H. Hazlitt, & H. &. Brothers (Ed.), Economics in One Lesson (pp. 69-70). New York, United States: Three Rivers Press, New York, New york. Retrieved January 19, 2014
Indians.org. (1995-2014). Arrowheads. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Indians: http://www.indians.org/articles/arrowheads.html
Microsoft. (2014). News Center - Facts About Microsoft. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/inside_ms.aspx
Moore, S. (2008, August). Ten Agricultural Inventions that Changed the Face of Farming in America. Retrieved January 26, 2014, from Farm Collector: http://www.farmcollector.com/equipment/ten-agricultural-inventions-in-farming-history.aspx
Pearson Education. (2013, October). United States Unemployment Rate. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from Info Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
Wendell Cox Consultancy. (2001). US Population From 1900. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from Demographia: http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm

References: Apple Inc. (2014). Creating Jobs Through Innovation. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Apple: http://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/ Gay, C. (2014). Best Business Jobs Accountant. (U.S. News & World Report LP) Retrieved January 19, 2014, from US News: http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/accountant Good Reads. (2014). Eleanor Roosevelt. Retrieved February 7, 2014, from Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/372147-we-have-reached-a-point-today-where-labor-saving-devices-are Hazlitt, H. (1962-1979). Economics in One Lesson. In H. Hazlitt, & H. &. Brothers (Ed.), Economics in One Lesson (pp. 69-70). New York, United States: Three Rivers Press, New York, New york. Retrieved January 19, 2014 Indians.org. (1995-2014). Arrowheads. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Indians: http://www.indians.org/articles/arrowheads.html Microsoft. (2014). News Center - Facts About Microsoft. Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/inside_ms.aspx Moore, S. (2008, August). Ten Agricultural Inventions that Changed the Face of Farming in America. Retrieved January 26, 2014, from Farm Collector: http://www.farmcollector.com/equipment/ten-agricultural-inventions-in-farming-history.aspx Pearson Education. (2013, October). United States Unemployment Rate. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from Info Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html Wendell Cox Consultancy. (2001). US Population From 1900. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from Demographia: http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm