Do robots take manufacturing jobs?

     I have suggested as much on a number of occasions in this blog and elsewhere.  This morning I read a blog entitled " Don't blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs."  Going straight to the bottom line, the authors conclude, "Industrial robots are a disruptive technology, and as disruptive technologies take hold some workers benefit while others are hurt. But to suggest, as some in popular media have, that the use of robots is a causal factor in the decline of American manufacturing employment is factually wrong and misses a broader point. As the productivity figures suggest, robots are increasingly essential to the competitiveness of a country’s manufacturing sector. The fact that countries like Germany, Sweden, and Korea are deploying automation technology at a much faster rate than the United States points to serious competitive challenges—and further debate about the use and impacts of automation."

       Of course, like their headline, these Brookings brainees' conclusion is exactly the over-simplification they critique in the body of their blog.  Neither they nor I nor any other thinking observers dispute the existence of multiple causes of lost  manufacturing jobs.  These guys list globalization and off-shoring (is there a difference?) and skills gaps.   No doubt they --- and robots --- are contributing causes of lost manufacturing jobs.  And, since it's pretty hard to control for all other causes and tease out the impact of any single cause is probably impossible, we might best be satisfied with knowing that all these factors combine to erode what once was the economic sector serving as the gateway to middle-class status for average working stiffs.

     Their mention of skills gaps brings to my mind an interesting assumption that we here in the US have embraced as an article of faith.  The Bush-era "No Child Left Behind" Law is the federal embodiment of this secular Ism.  There's a pretty good summary of the NCLB Act in Wikipedia.  The law, combined with other conservative policies on K-12 education have placed many public schools in a double bind:

Schools are expected to bring 95% of their student populations up to standards, whether or not students' low IQs and/or disabilities, eg, autism, make this goal a practical impossibility.

Meanwhile, wealthy conservatives --- such as billionaire Betsy DeVos, Trump's choice for Education Secretary --- favor charter schools and vouchers.  The effect is to siphon the best and brightest away from these same disadvantaged public schools.

Thus, as the NCLB bar keeps rising, the quality of the student body keeps declining.  Do you detect a fixed game here?  A self-fulfilling prophecy?  See, say the Betsy DeVos's of education, the public schools and their unionized teachers can't measure up to free enterprise, aka, charter schools.

These same folks, who profit from robotics, will tell you that robots help workers.  And perhaps it's true that those workers who have jobs controlling robots enjoy a cleaner, safer, more comfortable work place than those who labored on the assembly lines of old.  But, just as common sense says you can't siphon off the best students and expect under-funded public schools to meet NCLB standards, it also says to me every day that you can't keep automating and also create sufficient good jobs for everyone as well.

First of all, which of the kids who are mentally incapable of meeting NCLB standards will be mentally capable of taking the more sophisticated tasks that come with managing robotics?

Second, just look around you.  My wife and I drove to a Christmas party two days ago.  We took the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  When we got off, we used Easy-Pass.  Only a couple of the toll booths were set up for cash with a toll taker on duty.  Convenient for us?  To be sure.  But every automated booth was a tombstone for a toll taker no longer needed in that once well-paid government job.  That's just a quick example of automation all around us.

Mr. Trump criticized monthly job stats on the ground that many Americans have simply given up and dropped out of the quest for employment.  I don't think he's wrong.  The alarming increase in heroin overdoses would seem to reflect this loss of faith in the middle-class dream.

As with the loss of manufacturing jobs, drug overdoses have many causes, and teasing out loss of faith or hope probably can't be done.

America's problems are multiple and many-layered.  And this presents a big problem for Donald Trump, the first president to try to reduce every issue to a 100-word Tweet.  Most who voted Democratic or Green this year will never accept him as their legitimate president, especially since Clinton won the popular vote by such a wide margin.  Meanwhile, many who voted for him inevitably must be disappointed because he can't possibly deliver on his promises... due in no small part because of robotics. In other words, if he does fulfill his promise to bring back manufacturing jobs, who will get them... his supporters or robots?

And here comes the really scary part:  What does a demigod give the people when he's caught in this kind of dilemma?

Answer: War.

War usually has the "beneficial" effects of creating many jobs while dramatically reducing the workforce.  Unless of course it's fought using only robots, while sparing the population centers.  But I wouldn't count on either of those two things.

I think Mr. Trump is already positioning himself for the likely shortfall of his economic program by the saber-rattling that has already begun.  We were darned lucky to get through the Cold War without a nuclear exchange between or among the so-call Great Powers.  We might not be so lucky this time around.

Perhaps the robots will take over after we are gone, ala the Terminator saga.  If that happens, then I will agree with the Brookings article's headline (at least in part):  "Don't blame the robots."