Page 8


www.us- tech.com


June, 2020


How Many Jobs do Robots Really Replace?


Continued from page 1 “We find fairly major negative


• Excellent contrast 2000:1


• For environments - 40 ... + 80°C


• Extremely wide viewing angle 170°


• SPI, I²C Bus interface


• Integrated character set


• Super fast, even at – 40 °C


• Text and graphic • Super fl at and sturdy


• With pins for easy mounting


• USB testboard • Optional touch panel • Ex stock available


employment effects,” MIT economist Daron Acemoglu says, although he notes that the impact of the trend can be overstated. From 1990 to 2007, the study


shows, adding one additional robot per 1,000 workers reduced the na- tional employment-to-population ra- tio by about 0.2 percent, with some areas of the U.S. affected far more than others. This means that each additional


robot added in manufacturing re- placed about 3.3 workers nationally, on average. That increased use of ro- bots in the workplace also lowered wages by roughly 0.4 percent during the same time period. “We find negative wage effects,


that workers are losing in terms of re- al wages in more affected areas, be- cause robots are pretty good at com- peting against them,” Acemoglu says. The paper, “Robots and Jobs:


OLED DISPLAYS NEW FEATURES


phone: 917-9124750 · sales@displayvisions.us · www.displayvisions.us


Evidence from U.S. Labor Markets,” appears in advance online form in the Journal of Political Economy. The authors are Acemoglu and Pas- cual Restrepo, an assistant professor of economics at Boston University.


Displaced in Detroit To conduct the study, Acemoglu


and Restrepo used data on 19 indus- tries, compiled by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR), a Frankfurt-based industry group that keeps detailed statistics on robot de- ployments worldwide. The scholars combined that with U.S.-based data on population, employment, busi- ness, and wages, from the U.S. Cen- sus Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, among other sources. The researchers also compared


robot deployment in the U.S. to that of other countries, finding it lags be- hind that of Europe. From 1993 to 2007, U.S. firms actually did intro- duce almost exactly one new robot per 1,000 workers; in Europe, firms introduced 1.6 new robots per 1,000 workers. “Even though the U.S. is a tech-


nologically very advanced economy, in terms of industrial robots’ production and usage and innovation, it’s behind many other advanced economies,” Ace- moglu says. In the U.S. four manufacturing


High Performance Cleaners for Electronic Applications


Impressive Value with the End User Completely in Mind


Save on quality high-performance cleaners and maintenance products


for electronics. Contact your electronic distributor or visit us on the web at www.puretronics.com


92 Corporate Park • Suite C-255 • Irvine, CA 92606 • (800) 280-0020


industries account for 70 percent of robots: automakers (38 percent of ro- bots in use), electronics (15 percent), the plastics and chemicals industry (10 percent), and metals manufactur- ers (7 percent). Across the U.S., the study ana-


lyzed the impact of robots in 722 commuting zones in the continental U.S. — essentially metropolitan ar- eas — and found considerable geo- graphic variation in how intensively robots are utilized. Given industry trends in robot


deployment, the area of the country most affected is the seat of the automo- bile industry. Michigan has the highest concentration of robots in the work- place, with employment in Detroit, Lansing and Saginaw affected more than anywhere else in the country. “Different industries have dif-


ferent footprints in different places in the U.S.,” Acemoglu observes.


“The place where the robot issue is most apparent is Detroit. Whatever happens to automobile manufactur- ing has a much greater impact on the Detroit area [than elsewhere].” In commuting zones where ro-


bots were added to the workforce, each robot replaces about 6.6 jobs lo- cally, the researchers found. Howev- er, in a subtle twist, adding robots in manufacturing benefits people in other industries and other areas of the country — by lowering the cost of goods, among other things. These na- tional economic benefits are the rea- son the researchers calculated that adding one robot replaces 3.3 jobs for the country as a whole.


The Inequality Issue In conducting the study, Ace-


moglu and Restrepo went to consider- able lengths to see if the employment trends in robot-heavy areas might have been caused by other factors, such as trade policy, but they found no complicating empirical effects. The study does suggest, howev-


er, that robots have a direct influence on income inequality. The manufac- turing jobs they replace come from parts of the workforce without many other good employment options. As a result, there is a direct connection between automation in robot-using industries and sagging incomes among blue-collar workers. “There are major distributional


implications,” Acemoglu says. When robots are added to manufacturing plants, “The burden falls on the low- skill and especially middle-skill workers. That’s really an important part of our overall research [on ro- bots], that automation actually is a much bigger part of the technological factors that have contributed to ris- ing inequality over the last 30 years.” So while claims about machines


wiping out human work entirely may be overstated, the research by Ace- moglu and Restrepo shows that the robot effect is a very real one in man- ufacturing, with significant social implications. “It certainly won’t give any sup-


port to those who think robots are go- ing to take all of our jobs,” Acemoglu says. “But it does imply that automa- tion is a real force to be grappled with.” Web: www.news.mit.edu r


Absolute EMS, Vision MARK-1, and Insituware


Continued from page 1


ny that enables rapid assessments of materials during use. The technology combines advanced analytical sen- sors, smart devices and intelligent cloud-based information with inno- vative packaging methods to enable non-intrusive sensing. Contact: Absolute EMS, 555 Al-


do Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95054 % 408-850-7530 E-mail: jcarthy@absoluteems.com Web: www.absolute-ems.com and Insituware, LLC, South Jersey Tech- nology Park, 107 Gilbreth Parkway, Mullica Hill, NJ 08062 % 856-324-6776 E-mail: info@insituware.com Web: www.insituware.com r


OLEDS102


OLEDM128


OLEDM204


OLEDL128


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76