> Even better, to the extent that we are able to produce everything we need with less labor, we can afford to let people work less.
I'm doubtful. From what I've seen it just means that those who do have full time jobs are expected to work more. Why employ two people for 20 hours a week when you can have one person for 40hrs a week? For most industries the managerial and administrative overheads are less with fewer staff who work longer hours.
> but has not really succeeded in shedding much light on where innovation comes from or what policies support it.
Deirdre N. McCloskey might have something to say about that in her tomb 'Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World'[1][2]. tl;dr her argument is that the ability to bring innovation to market, profit, and be dignified in doing so is the factor that brought about the modern world.
And besides, we only have to look at other developed nations with liveable minimum wages to see that it hasn't caused an automation revolution. Where I live, Australia, has an adult minimum full-time wage of $17.29[3] and has an unemployment rate of 5.8%[4] (for some definitions of 'unemployed').
A liveable minimum wage isn't going to cause an automation revolution. The Automation Revolution is going to be what causes the automation revolution, and for that to happen we're going to need cheap general purpose robots trickling in to the second hand market.
When a business can buy a general purpose robot for less than 5x the annual salary of a full-time employee, and it can learn new skills as easily as a human, we'll be close. It's looking like that's a way off yet.
Australia is being fueled by huge external stimulus from China, which won't last forever. It's not the best example to use. Some of the mature European democracies provide much more useful data.
This[1] says "The mining sector represents 7%[31] of GDP; including services to mining, the total value of the Mining Industry in 2009-10 was 8.4% of GDP.", and "Despite the recent decline of the mining boom in the country, the Australian economy has remained resilient and stable." - We'll see how long that lasts. It's certainly given me pause when considering to take out a home loan. Am I going to have a job in 5 years time?
From my friends in Australia (academic economists) I hear that China's impact on housing now exceeds the impact on any other sector. Australia has effectively become mainland China's money laundering hub.
We haven't seen an automation revolution in Australia because the Australian tech sector isn't nearly as developed as that in the US.
Consider the fact that we are already seeing an automation revolution in the US with certain types of labor, e.g. driverless cars. Raising federal minimum wage will be like pouring gasoline on that fire.
> We haven't seen an automation revolution in Australia because the Australian tech sector isn't nearly as developed as that in the US.
But we haven't seen an automation revolution in the US either, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Some sources[2] claim Australian's are early adopters of new technology.
I wouldn't say "we are already seeing" an automation revolution in the US with regard to driverless cars. I'll be reviewing this opinion ever six months though. It certainly looks like there's a race to full automated driverless vehicles, but we're not there yet. Not en mass.
This NPR article[1] shows truck driver is the most common job is most states in the US. Self-driving trucks are going to be disruptive.
I'm doubtful. From what I've seen it just means that those who do have full time jobs are expected to work more. Why employ two people for 20 hours a week when you can have one person for 40hrs a week? For most industries the managerial and administrative overheads are less with fewer staff who work longer hours.
> but has not really succeeded in shedding much light on where innovation comes from or what policies support it.
Deirdre N. McCloskey might have something to say about that in her tomb 'Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World'[1][2]. tl;dr her argument is that the ability to bring innovation to market, profit, and be dignified in doing so is the factor that brought about the modern world.
And besides, we only have to look at other developed nations with liveable minimum wages to see that it hasn't caused an automation revolution. Where I live, Australia, has an adult minimum full-time wage of $17.29[3] and has an unemployment rate of 5.8%[4] (for some definitions of 'unemployed').
A liveable minimum wage isn't going to cause an automation revolution. The Automation Revolution is going to be what causes the automation revolution, and for that to happen we're going to need cheap general purpose robots trickling in to the second hand market.
When a business can buy a general purpose robot for less than 5x the annual salary of a full-time employee, and it can learn new skills as easily as a human, we'll be close. It's looking like that's a way off yet.
1. http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/ 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_McCloskey 3. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-g... 4. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/mf/6202.0