Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. The greater risk from automation is too few robots rather than too many, since new technologies often take time to produce productivity and wage gains, as during the delayed wage increases of early industrialization. In the short run automation can displace workers into lower-paid jobs, and resulting resistance could slow automation and productivity growth.

Economist Staff The Economist
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

The concern about automation should focus on too few robots, not too many. New technologies take time to yield productivity & wage gains. Insufficient automation could hinder economic expansion & exacerbate long-term challenges.

Is the bigger automation risk too few robots rather than too many?

Core argument: The greater economic risk from automation is too few robots rather than too many, since insufficient automation would hinder economic expansion and worsen long-term economic challenges.

The concern about automation should focus on the potential for too few robots rather than too many, as new technologies often take time to yield productivity and wage gains. Historical precedents, such as Engels's pause during industrialization, show that significant wage increases can be delayed. In the short term, automation may increase inequality by displacing workers into lower-paid jobs, potentially leading to social unrest and resistance. This could slow the pace of automation and productivity growth, ultimately leaving everyone worse off. The real risk lies in insufficient automation, which could hinder economic expansion and exacerbate long-term economic challenges.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. The greater economic risk from automation is too few robots rather than too many, since insufficient automation would hinder economic expansion and worsen long-term economic challenges.
  2. New technologies often take time to deliver productivity and wage gains, as illustrated by Engels's pause during industrialization, when significant wage increases were delayed.
  3. Automation may raise inequality in the short term by displacing workers into lower-paid jobs, potentially prompting social unrest and resistance that slows automation and productivity growth and leaves everyone worse off.

“…One is that new technologies take time to produce productivity and wage gains. It was several decades before industrialisation led to significantly higher wages for British workers in the early 1800s, a delay known as Engels’s pause, after the theorist of communism who observed it. Another lesson is that, even though it eventually increases the overall size of the economic pie, automation is also likely to boost inequality in the short run, by pushing some people into lower-paid jobs. Mr Frey is concerned that automation will leave many people worse off in the short term, leading to unrest and opposition, which could in turn slow the pace of automation and productivity growth. Everyone would then be worse off in the long run. This is the titular “technology trap”. Whereas many people assume he worries about a world with too many robots, Mr Frey is in reality more concerned about a future with too few….”

Economist Staff, "Will a robot really take your job?,"The Economist, June 27, 2019, https://www.economist.com/business/2019/06/27/will-a-robot-really-take-your-job

Showing 489 database articles primarily about either Productivity, Cronyism, Incentives/Risk-Taking, Innovation/Research, Institutional Capabilities, Intangibles, Investment, Startups, or Workforce Reorganization