Heilbroner and Thurow in their little textbook of twenty years ago, say that it is an empirical question whether more jobs are created making the machines than are destroyed by using them. Also the skills of the workers making them are different from those using them.
>It is widely believed -- and written about by economists, even -- >that technology advances cost jobs. > >Leontief believed. Rifkin and many others have written about it. > >But most economists insist that "more jobs are created than destroyed." > >But are jobs really keeping up? Is the weak market for labor -- >indicated by falling or level real wages -- evidence that jobs are >being detroyed by "productivity" or "technological advances" faster >than they are created? Are lower wages for most evidence of a weak >labor market, despite the long term increase in numbers of jobs? > >What are your thoughts? > >Gene Coyle > >
