更多的机器人意味着更多的骚乱

A Discussion of “Rage Against the Machines: Labor-Saving Technology and Unrest in Industrializing England”

讨论“对机器的愤怒：节省劳动力的技术和英格兰工业化中的动荡”

“Machines are going to take all the jobs,” is a sentiment I hear and read often. As an economist, I know this is not true. There will be disruption. Some jobs will be lost. Some jobs will be created.

我经常听到和听到这样的观点：“机器将承担所有工作。” 作为经济学家，我知道这是不正确的。 会有干扰。 一些工作将丢失。 将创建一些作业。

In fact, few know how dynamic our economy always is. We all hear the unemployment rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They also conduct the Establishment Payroll Survey where they collect information on how many jobs are gained and lost, among other things.

实际上，几乎没有人知道我们的经济总是充满活力。 我们都听到了劳工统计局报告的失业率。 他们还进行机构工资调查，收集有关获得和失去多少工作的信息。

The report you hear in the news is the net number, jobs gained minus jobs lost. Using 4th quarter 2019 data, they reported

您在新闻中听到的报告是净数字，获得的工作减去失去的工作。 他们使用2019年第四季度的数据进行了报告

• 7,831,000 Total Private Gross Jobs Gains
  7,831,000个私人职位总数增加
• 7,039,000 Total Private Gross Jobs Losses
  7,039,000私人总就业损失
• 792,000 Net New Jobs
  792,000个新职位

The last number is what would have been reported for the quarter, or approximately 264,000 new jobs each month. The news reports are usually giving the monthly net number, which is often in the plus or minus range of 200,000.

最后一个数字是本季度报告的数字，或每月大约264,000个新工作。 新闻报道通常会给出每月的净数字，该数字通常在20万的正负范围内。

It is easy then to have the impression that literally 200,000 jobs have been created while in fact, it was over 10 times that number on a monthly basis. And the same holds for the job losses.

容易产生这样的印象，即实际上创造了200,000个工作岗位，而实际上，这是每月数量的10倍以上。 失业也是如此。

You have businesses all across the economy opening and closing, expanding and contracting, hiring and firing; all results in lots of jobs created and lost.

您在整个经济领域的业务都处于打开和关闭，扩展和收缩，雇用和解雇的状态； 所有这些都会导致创造和失去很多工作。

What’s my point? That our economy is a lot more dynamic than most of us realize.

我有什么意思我们的经济比我们大多数人意识到的要活跃得多。

That said, the fear of machines, robots, AI, and automation, is a fear of a new trend where people think more jobs will be lost without enough being created to offset the losses.

就是说，对机器，机器人，人工智能和自动化的恐惧，是对一种新趋势的恐惧，人们认为如果没有创造足够的就业机会来弥补损失，就会失去更多的工作。

While I doubt that is true because there will be products and services sold in the future we cannot even imagine today, it does not discount the fact there will be jobs lost.

我怀疑这是真的，因为将来会售出一些产品和服务，而我们今天甚至无法想象，但这并不能否认会失去工作的事实。

In the big picture, the rise of technology is what economists call a positive shock. That is a technological improvement that allows productivity to rise, which means more output for any given amount of inputs.

从总体上看，技术的兴起被经济学家称为积极冲击。 这是一项技术进步，可以提高生产率，这意味着在任何给定数量的投入下，产出都会更多。

That is a good thing at the macro level. However, it will mean in some industries there will be fewer people needed.

在宏观层面上，这是一件好事。 但是，这意味着在某些行业中，所需的人才会减少。

• For those who lose their jobs, will they get a new one?
  对于那些失业的人，他们会得到新的工作吗？
• Will they have the skills to move into any new jobs that are being created?
  他们是否有能力从事正在创造的任何新工作？
• Will the new productivity lead to rising incomes and falling prices for all or only for some?
  新的生产力会导致所有人或仅部分人的收入增加和价格下降吗？

Photo by Science in HD on Unsplash

高清照片由 Science 拍摄于 Unsplash

These fears are nothing new as we see in Caprettini and Voth (2020) who are using new data to investigate the Swing Riots of 1830 in England. While various factors may have contributed to the unrest, they are investigating how much new threshing machines that reduced the need for labor contributed to the riots.

正如我们在Caprettini和Voth(2020)中所看到的那样，这些恐惧并不是什么新鲜的事，他们正在使用新数据来调查1830年英国的“Swing暴动”。 尽管各种因素可能导致了动乱，但他们正在调查有多少新的脱粒机减少了劳动力需求，从而引发了骚乱。

Background on the Captain Swing Riots

Swing上尉暴动的背景

The authors assert the riots were

作者断言暴动是

the largest wave of unrest in English history, with more than 3,000 cases of arson, looting, attacks on authorities, and machine breaking across 45 counties. (p. 305)

这是英国历史上最大的动荡浪潮，在45个县/地区发生了3,000多起纵火，抢劫，对当局的袭击和机器爆炸的案件。 (第305页)

In this paper the authors say they are able to show that the adoption of the labor-saving threshing machines was a key factor behind these riots, but they acknowledge there were other issues that could have led to these riots (p. 306)

在本文中，作者说，他们能够证明采用省力的脱粒机是造成这些暴动的关键因素，但他们承认还有其他问题可能导致这些暴动(第306页)

• Bad weather
  坏天气
• A poor harvest
  收成不好
• News of the French and Belgian revolutions
  法国和比利时革命的新闻
• The Enclosures
  外壳

To explain the last one, England used to have common lands open for rural people to share for grazing that began to be fenced off for the private owner as part of the evolution from feudalism to capitalism. Losing access to this land left many without a livelihood and dependent on jobs for income.

为了解释最后一个问题，英格兰曾经有开放给农民共享土地的土地，以供放牧，这是从封建主义到资本主义演变的一部分，开始被私有所有者所围栏。 无法进入这片土地使许多人没有生计，只能依靠工作来赚钱。

By the 1800s, English agriculture had modernized into an enterprise that primarily produced for the market as opposed to small, subsistence level farms.

到1800年代，英国的农业已经现代化，成为主要为市场生产的企业，而不是小型的，自给自足的农场。

Hired labor was a regular feature, particularly for the labor-intensive threshing process in the winter, “traditionally using flails swung overhead.” (p. 306) Ah! I suppose that is where the “swing” comes from in the Swing Riots.

雇用劳力是一项常规功能，特别是对于冬季的劳动密集型脱粒过程而言，“传统上是使用在上方悬挂的ail子”。 (第306页)啊！ 我想这就是“Swing”来自“Swing骚乱”的来源。

According to the authors, on average 38% of the adult males in a parish worked in agriculture. (p. 310) Further, 50% of a farm laborer’s winter income came from threshing, before mechanization. (p. 306)

这组作者说，一个教区平均有38％的成年男性从事农业工作。 (第310页)此外，在机械化之前，农场工人冬天收入的50％来自脱粒。 (第306页)

The first Swing Riots broke out in 1830: (p. 307)

1830年爆发了第一场摇摆暴动：(p。307)

• 3,000 riots across 45 counties
  45个县共发生3,000次暴动
• Arson was frequent
  纵火频繁
• 514 threshing machines were attacked
  攻击了514台脱粒机
• Rioters were rural workers and local craftsmen
  暴徒是农村工人和当地手工业者

The Model

该模型

The authors are asserting that as these new threshing machines increase so does the likelihood of riots, once accounting for some control variables.

作者断言，随着这些新的脱粒机的增加，一旦考虑到一些控制变量，发生暴动的可能性也会增加。

In fact, they do find “a strong, positive correlation between riots and adoption of the new machines.” (p. 311)

实际上，他们确实发现“暴动与采用新机器之间存在着密切的正相关关系”。 (第311页)

However, they acknowledge they do not have the data needed to discredit other factors like immigration that could be playing a role (p. 312). For this reason, they try a second way of testing their hypothesis that will not suffer from potential bias.

但是，他们承认，他们没有消除其他因素(例如移民可能在起作用)所需的数据(第312页)。 因此，他们尝试了另一种方法来检验其假设，该假设不会受到潜在偏见的影响。

Their goal: show the adoption rate of threshers is the source of the riots.

他们的目标是：表明脱粒机的采用率是暴动的根源。

Their problem: the adoption rate of threshers could be correlated with other factors that will bias the estimates.

他们的问题是：脱粒机的采用率可能与其他可能使估计值产生偏差的因素相关。

Solution: soil that is good for wheat is highly correlated with the adoption of threshers because these threshers worked on wheat only at this point, and the soil variable is not correlated with those other factors like the adoption of threshers could be.

解决方案：对小麦有益的土壤与采用脱粒机高度相关，因为这些脱粒机仅在此时才对小麦起作用，并且土壤变量与其他因素(如采用脱粒机)均不相关。

They can thus capture just the part of the adoption rate of threshers that is correlated to the number of riots by looking at the correlation of soil good for wheat and the prevalence of riots.

因此，他们可以通过查看小麦对土壤有益的相关性和骚乱的发生率，仅捕获与暴动次数相关的脱粒机采用率的一部分。

This is the Instrumental Variables estimator, and it is used in cases like this when there are concerns about your explanatory variable (adoption of threshers) being completely exogenous.

这是“工具变量”估算器，用于担心您的解释变量(采用脱粒机)完全外生的情况下。

Thus concludes our tiny peak into the world of econometrics.

这样就结束了我们进入计量经济学世界的微小高峰。

Results

结果

They find that the probability of a riot occurring in a particular parish doubles from 13.6% for parishes with no threshing machines to 26.1% for those who had at least one (p. 306)

他们发现，在特定教区发生骚乱的可能性从没有打谷机的教区的13.6％增至拥有至少一个教区的教区的26.1％(p。306)。

However, they find the likelihood of a riot was not the same everywhere.

但是，他们发现各地发生骚乱的可能性并不相同。

1. Riots were more likely in areas farther away from major manufacturing towns. (p. 317) When such a town was near, that meant alternative employment was more likely. Thus, these workers were more likely to “exit” than to riot.
   远离主要制造业城镇的地区更容易发生骚乱。 (第317页)当这样的城镇很近时，这意味着有更多的工作机会。 因此，这些工人更有可能“退出”而不是暴动。
2. Workers who had been directly impacted by the enclosures movement were more likely to riot.
   受围墙运动直接影响的工人更容易暴动。

To bring this forward to our times, workers who lose their jobs to automation will be more likely to express their unrest if they have fewer nearby job options and if other factors had previously negatively impacted their wages.

为了将这一点带入我们的时代，如果失去工作的工人减少了附近的工作选择，并且以前受其他因素不利地影响了他们的工资，那么失去自动化的工人将更有可能表达他们的动荡。

Another application to our time could be that the threshing machines were a positive shock to the economy and a negative shock to the workers. That is, landowners (capital) saw profits rise as share of income going to labor fell. (p. 317) This is something that is being observed in our economy today, likely also due to positive technological shocks.

脱粒机对我们时代的另一个应用可能是对经济的正面冲击，对工人的负面冲击。 也就是说，土地所有者(资本)的利润随着劳动收入的份额下降而上升。 (第317页)在当今的经济中，这可能是由于积极的技术冲击而引起的。

The authors do note they are examining “a large and rapid dislocation” because threshing was the main income for these workers in the winter months, and these workers were a large portion of the labor force in the English parishes. (p. 317) More gradual changes may not cause as much unrest.

作者确实指出，他们正在研究“大规模而Swift的流离失所”，因为打谷是这些工人在冬季的主要收入，而这些工人在英国教区中占劳动力的很大一部分。 (第317页)渐进式变化可能不会引起太多动荡。

We cannot stop technological progress, nor do I think we should. We can look though to the past to see how to help the adjustment process.

我们不能停止技术进步，我也不应该这样做。 我们可以回顾过去，以了解如何帮助调整过程。

One lesson from this examination of the past that stands out to me is we need to see which workers are being most hurt and figure out how to provide them an exit.

从对我的过去的回顾中得出的一个教训是，我们需要了解哪些工人受到的伤害最大，并弄清楚如何为他们提供出口。

Caprettini, Bruno and Hans-Joachim Voth (2020). “Rage Against the Machines: Labor-Saving Technology and Unrest in Industrializing England.” AER: Insights, 2(3): 305–320.

Caprettini，Bruno和Hans-Joachim Voth(2020)。 “反对机器的愤怒：节省劳动力的技术和英格兰工业化中的动荡。” AER：见解， 2(3)：305–320。

翻译自: https://medium.com/illumination/more-robots-mean-more-riots-d90e66d791a