Abstracts
Sommaire
L'automation relève des sciences de la nature et des sciences de l'homme à la fois. Dans cet article, l'auteur s'applique à montrer que l'automation, envisagée comme problème humain, ou par rapport à ses conséquences probables sur la société en général, et sur les travailleurs en particulier, soulève des opinions variées, parfois contradictoires. Il propose un cadre de discussion, qui permette de tenir compte du plus grand nombre d'opinions possibles et il situe l'automation dans la chaîne historique des innovations.
Summary
Automation is a question of the day. But opinions on the subject are divided. Professor Weiner, on the one hand, had this to say about it: "Let us remember that the automatic machine... is the precise economic equivalent of slave labor. Any labor that competes with slave lahor must accept the economic conditions of slave labor. It is perfectly clear that this will produce an unemployment situation, in comparison with which... the depression of the '30 will seem a pleasant joke. This depression will ruin many industries — possibly even the industries that have taken advantage of the new potentialities".
On the other hand, Mr. D.J. Davis regards automation as a normal achievement and even wonders how our industrial society could go on without it: "We at Ford do not share the apprehensions of some that the increased use of automation equipment may throw thousands of people out of work or otherwise dislocate our economy. Indeed, without automation in the steel, chemical, refining, food processing and cigarette industries — to mention only a few that are much more highly automated than we ever hoped to be — there simply would not be enough production for their products to fill our needs and certainly not at prices we could, afford to pay".
Mr. Davis, clearly enough, argues from the viewpoint of a production economist or engineer and is concerned mostly with the increase in efficiency and productivity; while Professor Wiener emphasizes the impact of automation upon the labour market. Both may hold extremist views about it.
An inquiry conducted by the McGraw-Hill Department of Economics into 1,574 companies, 20% of which had automated their equipment, shows that 26% of the automated companies recorded a 21% increase in employment, 23% a 16% decrease. In the aggregate, a proportion of 51% of those companies have recorded no change in global employment. But the report further discloses that automation is apt to change the pattern of the labour market, for it increases the demand for skilled labour. In 40% of the companies investigated, it required a skilled maintenance personnel; in 21%, it created the need for an increase in the engineering staff. On the other hand, the demand for unskilled labour declined, giving a 10% decrease in employment opportunities for that category of labour in the last 25 years, while the chance for a higher percentage of lay-off is forecast for the next 15 years. Although automation is likely to modify the character of the demand for labour over a period it may not change the global volume of employment. Because, however, automation may create such conditions as would stimulate the rise of new industries, the volume of employment should even grow, and then, assuming that those new industries are automated, the impact upon the social structure would be the greater.
One may with advantage view automation with reference to the problems raised in economic history by "innovation". A number of inquiries have been made into the impact of innovation upon employment. — particularly with respect to "technological unemployment". The Carroll Report (1886), the Weintraub Report (1940) are cases in point. It may be that innovations are necessary elements in the normal growth of a capitalist society; they are bound to happen, by all means. In terms of normal growth — the long-run view emphasized by traditional economics — the loss incurred as a consequence of innovations is held to be compensated by advantages accrued to society from the same or other innovations. But, as an English economist has put it, in the long run we are all dead. The writer may suggest, by the way, that also in the short run some of us may be "all dead", as a consequence, direct or indirect, of automation. The short-run view emphasizes social adjustment; and social adjustment is one aspect of the general weal. Care must be taken, therefore, that in discussing automation, the perspective be defined in relation to a number of levels of analysis.