E yr
ff. FFECT automation will

v
teaq 2S is a topic of
5 today CR among
tty the er Doubtless that

ni Meson ‘ews of Dr. Stewart
% t u

6 1p ofessor of econo-
ia, wen sity of British
t wie received with
in test at the re-
i on automation
Party; te New Demo-

Y in Hamilton, Ont-

‘Ane

‘Mieson dealt with two
automation: (1) its

and (2) 4cn tetal employ-

"Wuirer “He new kinds of

i Ments it will impose.

te

‘i two schools of
€ impact of tech-
~"nge on jobs, he

7
QO

firs
oe 4 eld by most econo-
au sesmen of busi-
nN &. Omation, or cyber-
at a aa €rely a continua-
eK ope intense rate, of
Of technological

“cho
Cem OBicg
t in I change and dis-

y, aM One sector of
7 "ese economists
ot expansion in
€mand in other
Maintains or
total employ-

wt Chol geeestry ‘created by
Ss yee! change itself
be Ney, PlOducts, new pro-
by Teseqntchines, And new
Faent, pct design and de-
ag alee Uetion and main-
Wg Ment je, ,°tC: The new de-
j a8 "eas, ah to lower costs
Ubu an aS a result de-
s,. Pticag 24 Sales increase.
ma ets, mean Savings to
M othe, © iS. more in-
~“*T goods and ser-

Nin

d published in

one,

oe

It DOES pose a threat of
serious mass unemploy-
ment, says economist, and
Canada will be specially
hard hif.

vices, which also helps to create
more new jobs.

These economists point to
agriculture as an example. Be-
cause of the tremendous increase
in output per man-hour on the
farm made possible by scientific
and technological developments,
a much smaller farm population
today produces a far larger. out-
put of farm products than be-
fore. However, the economies
this has made available to the
consumer has meant that people
now spend a far smaller part
of their incomes on food and
therefore have more to spend on
other goods and services.

Dr. Jamiesorr does not share

‘this optimistic, orthodox view.
A ‘minority view among some

economists, in which he includes

himself, is that “‘autcmation or

cybernation is technological
change of an entirely new di-
mension.”

“It does pose a threat of seri-
ous mass unemployment and
does call for drastic new mea-
sures, including new bases for
planning production and the al-
location of labor, and for the dis-
tribution of income to the popu-
lation.”

Dr. Jamieson gave several
reasons why automation cannot
be compared to the old style
“mechanization” and why “it
poses a threat of large-scale and
more or less permanent unem-
ployment.”

1. The greatly accelerated rate
of change and displacement.

; ,
4 S enslavement
Y the machine

8 views in 1914 have

out its initiators knowing or

ch, 1914.)

* sta is Cannot be at
ent, = for a single
Mo 5 Must for-
n, ee forward.
tiog uch is keen-
mT cal Of crisis like
off an US for the in-
© Ney. Ncreasj

“Ose devices a featie
don,t Pro Bice reduce
ttt at; 1on, But

te alt

tine ese devices

E Mitation 208 the fur-

: ; n of the work-

aloe s ;
Ueyigg.’ Stem is one

of capital

wishing it — is preparing the
time when the proletariat will
take over all social produc-
tion and appoint its own
workers’ committees for the
purpose of properly distrib-
uting and rationalizing all
social labor. Large-scale pro-
duction, machinery, railways,
telephone -all provide
thousands of opportunities to
cut by three-fourths the work-
ing time of the organized
workers and make them four
times better off than they are
today.

And these workers’ com-
mittees, assisted by the
workers’ unions, will be able
to apply these principles of
rational distribution of social
labor when the latter is freed
from the enslavement of
capital.

This is so rapid, he said, that
“some authoritative observers
predict young workers .now en-
tering the labor market for the
first time will, on the average,
have to change their occupations
—not just jobs, but occupations,
that require a more or less
lengthy period of training—three
times in the course of their
working lifetime.” :

“Jt seems likely,” he added
“that a large and probably in-
creasing percentage of the labor
force will be mentally or psy-
chologically incapable of being
adaptable.” This means there
will be more “prolonged or per-
manent unemployment and de-
pendency.”

_ 2. There is the magnitude of
the displacement.

Under automation or cyberna-
tion, he explained, entire plants,
not just one particular depart-
ment or one stage of a produc-
tion process, could be affected.

Under the old style mechani-
zation a worker displaced from
one department could be trans-
ferred to another without too
much change in skill require-
ments. When a plant becomes
automated, it is much more dif-
ficult to reabsorb the displaced
workers.

Whereas the old-style jobs re-
quired mainly dexterity and ex-
perience, in automated produc-
tion “the main emphasis con-
cerns matters of mental quality
and-temperament: ability to con-
centrate for long periods, to re-
act quickly, and in the right
way.”
“Where in the old style fac-

tory jobs the main problems

were monotony and physical ex-
haustion, some of the main
strains in the new jobs are those
of anxiety and tension.”

The retraining and transfer-
ence from old jobs to new jobs
with the changeover from me-
chanization to automation is
therefore much more difficult
than it has been during the
changeovers in recent decades.

3. For the first time in history
technological change now threat-
ens to displace, on a large scale,
white-collar workers or, more
broadly, those engaged in cleri-
cal, sales and service occupa-
tions. :

So far there has been very
little net displacement of white-
collar. workers, Dr. Jamieson
noted, indeed jobs in this field
have been expanding despite the
introduction of computers. But
this is not likely to continue
indefinitely. Sooner or later, of-
fice automation will create a
net displacement of office work-
ers and potentially sales and
service workers, just as until
now agricultural. and goods-
producing workers have been
displaced.

“Automation thus creates the
prospect of a drastic change in
the whole occupational structure
of the labor force which makes
the maintenance of full employ-
ment increasingly difficult to
conceive.

“Hardly more than a century
ago in the United States it took
roughly nine farm workers to
support one person engaged in
non-farm activity. Today the

utomation and tomorrow s

jobs

\s
A

ueeir

4\'M SoRRY FoR THE DELAN=+- EVERYTHING WILL BE OKAY
AS.SOON AS WE GET MORE MACHINES OPERATING

proportion is roughly reversed.

If the full potentialities of
automation are brought to bear
in other fields, conceivably the
same sort of result might occur

in other goods-producing indus-

tries.”

“Conceivably, then,” said Dr.
Jamieson, “within a few de-
cades, or even a few years, we
may reach the situation where
5 or 10 percent of the popula-
tion is engaged in producing
food, and another 10 or 15 per-
cent can produce all the non-
agricultural goods... . So that
altogether something like: 20 or
25 percent of the population
would-be producing all the
goods the population of a coun-
try wants or needs.”

One optimistic view is that

with higher incomes and greater -

leisure time automation will
bring about an increase in the
needs for services, supplying
work for hordes of baby-sitters,
waiters, bartenders, hotel por-
ters, and the like. But studies
show that automation is invad-
ing these fields also, as for ex-
ample the automatic washer and
drier, automatic oil heat, etc.

“The demand for unskilled or
semi-skilled menial or service
workers,” Dr. Jamieson said, “Is
not likely to go up in propor-
tion to the displacement of
workers by automation. Rather,
there will likely be a demand
for (1) more expensive types of
goods which are themselves pro-
ducts of automation, and (2)
services of a very specialized
kind, which individuals cannot
produce for themselves in their
spare time — services of doc-
tors, lawyers, college professors,
psychiatrists, airline pilots, pro-
fessional athletes, and the like.

“The end result of all this
may be a more rapid expansion
of specialized professions and
skilled service workers and dis-

placement and permanent un-

employment for a large and
growing body of unskilled and
semi-skilled workers.”

This has been taking place
for some time now, Dr. Jamie-

May 22, 1964—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5

son pointed out. Studies show
that most of the people who
now have family incomes of less
than $3,000 a year, or indivi-
dual incomes of less than $1,200
a year, are people who do not
or cannot produce goods or ser-
vices which they can sell for
an adequate level of income.

“Most of these one way or an-

other, are casualties of techno-
logical change or automation:
migratory farm workers; sub-
marginal farmers or coal min-
ers; jobless workers displaced
from manufacturing or other
industries; rural migrants to ur-
ban centres who, due to mech-
anization or automation, can no
longer find unskilled or semi-
skilled jobs; casually employed
and low-paid sales or service
workers, and the like.”

Canada faces some special
problems because of automation,
Dr. Jamieson noted in the con-
cluding section of his address.

_ “Canadian economy is essen-
tially a branch plant economy.

“Automation, or cybernation,

‘is likely to mean, therefore, that

the displacement that occurs in

‘Canadian plants will not neces-

sarily lead to compensatory ex-
pansion of employment within
Canada. More likely it will oc-
cur in the head offices of par-
ent corporations in the United
States—the new jobs created by
research and development, de-
sign and production of new ma-
chines, maintenance, repair, and
service, and so on—most or all
of these new jobs will occur in
the United States rather than
in Canada.”

Dr. Jamieson added that “in
all probability this has already
been taking place to some ex-
tent. Much of the reason for
the  much-publicized ‘brain
drain’, so called—the emigration
of large numbers of our skilled
engineers, technicians, scientists
of various kinds, as well as pro-
fessional people like doctors and
nurses, to the USA has occur-
ed because much more, propor-
tionately, is spent on research |
in that country than in this
one.” 2