Does recycling lead to fewer jobs?Does Abatement Cost Mean Cost of Reducing Emissions with Output Held Constant?Effectiveness of recycling (consumer PET) plasticHow will non-rich citizens make a living if jobs keep getting replaced by robots and are outsourced?Have automation and technological advance been shown to have a positive impact on society and the economy or a negative one?Why does immigration boost the economy? (or does it not…?)Productivity vs real earnings in the US — what happened ca 1974?In a context of globalisation and high wage inequality, why should governments help unskilled workers?Recycling creditsWhy do stricter emission limits cost jobs?
For given two integers A and B, find a pair of numbers X and Y such that A = X*Y and B = X xor Y
Is Fox News not classified as a news channel?
Best fighting style for a pacifist
How do you call a note, that stays through the whole song?
Cheap and safe way to dim 100+ 60W Incandescent bulbs
Story about delivery truck organization existing only to support itself
Universal example of Lie algebra
What is a recently obsolete computer storage device that would be significantly difficult to extract data from?
What does "classe [year]" mean, in a biography?
What is the name of ABB*A=BBBB puzzles?
MS BASIC, access a DIMed variable with no index?
Is there any theory why (for Bitcoin) the discrete logarithm problem is so hard to solve?
What is the difference between "cat < filename" and "cat filename"?
Draw the Ionising Radiation Hazard Symbol
I peer reviewed a paper and found it to be sound - technically and language-wise. How should I write the review report?
Rotational Mechanics: Is Angular Acceleration Possible without any External Torque?
What are the maximum hit points of an NPC?
How to deal with an employee who is requesting a demotion?
In the Trump Impeachment process what is the legal status of notes?
Banking system in C++
What is this nut?
Proper Case Conversion (Performance)
Suppose I capture encrypted data that I want to decrypt. Could I use a server farm to decrypt?
truck makes a tapping/knocking sound only happen the first start of the day and stops after truck is warm
Does recycling lead to fewer jobs?
Does Abatement Cost Mean Cost of Reducing Emissions with Output Held Constant?Effectiveness of recycling (consumer PET) plasticHow will non-rich citizens make a living if jobs keep getting replaced by robots and are outsourced?Have automation and technological advance been shown to have a positive impact on society and the economy or a negative one?Why does immigration boost the economy? (or does it not…?)Productivity vs real earnings in the US — what happened ca 1974?In a context of globalisation and high wage inequality, why should governments help unskilled workers?Recycling creditsWhy do stricter emission limits cost jobs?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
$begingroup$
Say I buy a glass bottle, I can either put it in the landfill or recycle it.
My understanding is, glass will breakdown into sand. (Not sure how well though, since we sometimes find glass from Roman times.) Alternatively we can recycle it.
But I was wondering wouldn't this put some people out of work? Such as the people who have to mine all the silica for use in making the glass in the first place. And considering it is more economic to recycle glass, this seems like fewer humans would be needed.
Therefore could I make the case that not recycling my glass bottle is helping with employment. On the other hand, recycling might be helping the economy as a whole and there might be more money in the economy for public sector jobs. Which is right?
labor-economics productivity environmental-economics automation
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Say I buy a glass bottle, I can either put it in the landfill or recycle it.
My understanding is, glass will breakdown into sand. (Not sure how well though, since we sometimes find glass from Roman times.) Alternatively we can recycle it.
But I was wondering wouldn't this put some people out of work? Such as the people who have to mine all the silica for use in making the glass in the first place. And considering it is more economic to recycle glass, this seems like fewer humans would be needed.
Therefore could I make the case that not recycling my glass bottle is helping with employment. On the other hand, recycling might be helping the economy as a whole and there might be more money in the economy for public sector jobs. Which is right?
labor-economics productivity environmental-economics automation
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Are you asking "which is right" in [economics] theory, or in practice? You've already received the theoretical answer: it's an ambiguous effect without getting into specifics of production & recycling processes [or any aggregate labor statistics of those, which do actually exist]. But you already seem to sense that theoretical ambiguity. So is your question about empirical evidence?
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 8:11
7
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 8:47
3
$begingroup$
The point of the broken window fallacy is that you cannot create value by destroying value, not that you cannot manipulate economic forces such that there are winners and losers. "The Economy" is not "a particular country's economy".
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:48
1
$begingroup$
@zooby If the net benefit were positive, it would be the creation of the motorway -- and, distally, the creation of the right-of-way for the motorway -- which led to that benefit, rather than the resources spent by the homeowners to replace those destroyed houses.
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:54
1
$begingroup$
You could throw all your garbage on the ground to create more work for janitors and cleanup crews. You could start fires to make more work for firefighters and rescue operators. You could become a bank robber to create more work for police and other security personnel. You could become a serial killer to create more work for forensics analysts and coroners. This argument could be taken to any extreme, but none of these contribute to the overall betterment of society.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Oct 16 at 17:35
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Say I buy a glass bottle, I can either put it in the landfill or recycle it.
My understanding is, glass will breakdown into sand. (Not sure how well though, since we sometimes find glass from Roman times.) Alternatively we can recycle it.
But I was wondering wouldn't this put some people out of work? Such as the people who have to mine all the silica for use in making the glass in the first place. And considering it is more economic to recycle glass, this seems like fewer humans would be needed.
Therefore could I make the case that not recycling my glass bottle is helping with employment. On the other hand, recycling might be helping the economy as a whole and there might be more money in the economy for public sector jobs. Which is right?
labor-economics productivity environmental-economics automation
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Say I buy a glass bottle, I can either put it in the landfill or recycle it.
My understanding is, glass will breakdown into sand. (Not sure how well though, since we sometimes find glass from Roman times.) Alternatively we can recycle it.
But I was wondering wouldn't this put some people out of work? Such as the people who have to mine all the silica for use in making the glass in the first place. And considering it is more economic to recycle glass, this seems like fewer humans would be needed.
Therefore could I make the case that not recycling my glass bottle is helping with employment. On the other hand, recycling might be helping the economy as a whole and there might be more money in the economy for public sector jobs. Which is right?
labor-economics productivity environmental-economics automation
labor-economics productivity environmental-economics automation
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
edited Oct 18 at 18:59
Stephen Ostermiller
1033 bronze badges
1033 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
asked Oct 15 at 23:29
zoobyzooby
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
2712 silver badges8 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Are you asking "which is right" in [economics] theory, or in practice? You've already received the theoretical answer: it's an ambiguous effect without getting into specifics of production & recycling processes [or any aggregate labor statistics of those, which do actually exist]. But you already seem to sense that theoretical ambiguity. So is your question about empirical evidence?
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 8:11
7
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 8:47
3
$begingroup$
The point of the broken window fallacy is that you cannot create value by destroying value, not that you cannot manipulate economic forces such that there are winners and losers. "The Economy" is not "a particular country's economy".
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:48
1
$begingroup$
@zooby If the net benefit were positive, it would be the creation of the motorway -- and, distally, the creation of the right-of-way for the motorway -- which led to that benefit, rather than the resources spent by the homeowners to replace those destroyed houses.
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:54
1
$begingroup$
You could throw all your garbage on the ground to create more work for janitors and cleanup crews. You could start fires to make more work for firefighters and rescue operators. You could become a bank robber to create more work for police and other security personnel. You could become a serial killer to create more work for forensics analysts and coroners. This argument could be taken to any extreme, but none of these contribute to the overall betterment of society.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Oct 16 at 17:35
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Are you asking "which is right" in [economics] theory, or in practice? You've already received the theoretical answer: it's an ambiguous effect without getting into specifics of production & recycling processes [or any aggregate labor statistics of those, which do actually exist]. But you already seem to sense that theoretical ambiguity. So is your question about empirical evidence?
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 8:11
7
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 8:47
3
$begingroup$
The point of the broken window fallacy is that you cannot create value by destroying value, not that you cannot manipulate economic forces such that there are winners and losers. "The Economy" is not "a particular country's economy".
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:48
1
$begingroup$
@zooby If the net benefit were positive, it would be the creation of the motorway -- and, distally, the creation of the right-of-way for the motorway -- which led to that benefit, rather than the resources spent by the homeowners to replace those destroyed houses.
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:54
1
$begingroup$
You could throw all your garbage on the ground to create more work for janitors and cleanup crews. You could start fires to make more work for firefighters and rescue operators. You could become a bank robber to create more work for police and other security personnel. You could become a serial killer to create more work for forensics analysts and coroners. This argument could be taken to any extreme, but none of these contribute to the overall betterment of society.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Oct 16 at 17:35
$begingroup$
Are you asking "which is right" in [economics] theory, or in practice? You've already received the theoretical answer: it's an ambiguous effect without getting into specifics of production & recycling processes [or any aggregate labor statistics of those, which do actually exist]. But you already seem to sense that theoretical ambiguity. So is your question about empirical evidence?
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 8:11
$begingroup$
Are you asking "which is right" in [economics] theory, or in practice? You've already received the theoretical answer: it's an ambiguous effect without getting into specifics of production & recycling processes [or any aggregate labor statistics of those, which do actually exist]. But you already seem to sense that theoretical ambiguity. So is your question about empirical evidence?
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 8:11
7
7
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 8:47
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 8:47
3
3
$begingroup$
The point of the broken window fallacy is that you cannot create value by destroying value, not that you cannot manipulate economic forces such that there are winners and losers. "The Economy" is not "a particular country's economy".
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:48
$begingroup$
The point of the broken window fallacy is that you cannot create value by destroying value, not that you cannot manipulate economic forces such that there are winners and losers. "The Economy" is not "a particular country's economy".
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:48
1
1
$begingroup$
@zooby If the net benefit were positive, it would be the creation of the motorway -- and, distally, the creation of the right-of-way for the motorway -- which led to that benefit, rather than the resources spent by the homeowners to replace those destroyed houses.
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:54
$begingroup$
@zooby If the net benefit were positive, it would be the creation of the motorway -- and, distally, the creation of the right-of-way for the motorway -- which led to that benefit, rather than the resources spent by the homeowners to replace those destroyed houses.
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:54
1
1
$begingroup$
You could throw all your garbage on the ground to create more work for janitors and cleanup crews. You could start fires to make more work for firefighters and rescue operators. You could become a bank robber to create more work for police and other security personnel. You could become a serial killer to create more work for forensics analysts and coroners. This argument could be taken to any extreme, but none of these contribute to the overall betterment of society.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Oct 16 at 17:35
$begingroup$
You could throw all your garbage on the ground to create more work for janitors and cleanup crews. You could start fires to make more work for firefighters and rescue operators. You could become a bank robber to create more work for police and other security personnel. You could become a serial killer to create more work for forensics analysts and coroners. This argument could be taken to any extreme, but none of these contribute to the overall betterment of society.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Oct 16 at 17:35
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Any invention that replaces human labor puts an end to that specific task. Glass recycling eliminates (or decrease) the need for silica-gathering task. Typewriter eliminates the need for printing press typesetter. Etc.
Those people whose tasks are eliminated will get reallocated to their most productive use. This might be in the form of job change (silica miner move to coal miner), or might be in the form of task redefinition (the book Prediction Machines describe how self-driving school bus might shift the main task of a school bus driver to an adult who oversees and "teaches" the schoolchildren.)
Going back to your question, recycling also creates new jobs. They need people to sort bottles, maybe drive a recycling truck, etc. So whether an invention leads to more or less job is ambiguous.
Added: While the effect on a specific industry might be quantifiable, if you take into account job mobility, etc. then the effect on the whole labor market is ambiguous.
Regardless, an invention that increases productivity should increase the size of the pie. We can produce more from the same resources. How that bigger pie is divided, however, is another very important question altogether.
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
(Re 3rd para) It's ambiguous only if we don't get into the specifics of each industry. Otherwise one may be able to answer it one way or the other for specific production and recycling processes.
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 2:59
4
$begingroup$
Just to extend with an example: in 1900, 40% of jobs were agricultural. In 2000, 2% of jobs were agricultural. If you ask people from 1900, they'll assume that the other 38% living in the year 2000 are now unemployed, because people from 1900 don't know what a sofware developer, SEO expert, smartphone manufacturer, ... is and they can't account for the employment that accompanies it. People will always find something to do. Automating a menial task opens the market to finding something more productive to do with the manhours saved through automation.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:56
2
$begingroup$
@zooby: The main point of recycling is not to lower manhours, but to lower environmental impact. This means that recycling does not necessarily lead to less employment. Consider the difference in needing to hire people to sort and wash the recycled glass, compared to indiscriminately throwing it all in a landfill and mining more silica. In theory, it's perfectly possible that glass sorting/washing leads to more jobs than the silica mining sector would lose out on. It might not be the case for glass specifically, but the general point still stands.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
@zooby: Compare this to e.g. SpaceX recycling its booster rockets. Here, the main incentive is to not have to build new boosters (which takes more time and effort than fixing a spent one), and the main goal is to lower manhours spent. For this example, your argument is valid, but you'd still miss the point that lowered hours would lead to more/cheaper launches, rather than the frequency of launches being unchanged and less labor being available.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
@Delioth: Less labor does incentivize a company to take on fewer jobs (unless they are able to just increase the workload - but then it's not "less labor" anymore either). Employees are effectively manhours to a company. When you need fewer manhours, you need fewer employees. No one is going to pay their employees for the hours they don't need to work due to lowered labor.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 21:57
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In the classical model, recycling (and most other changes in modes of consumption) doesn't change employment either way in the long term. The jobs gained by recycling are lost from other sectors and the jobs lost are gained.
Shifting away from the classical model, there are short term changes in employment from shocks in which recycling as a profession becomes more or less attractive to the point to induce workers to change jobs. During that switch unemployment will increase, but over time it should settle to its "natural" rate (which is determined by a host of unrelated factors).
Another factor in employment is in the skills possessed and required for jobs. Maybe many of the people currently employed in recycling are very low-skill workers. If these people lose their current jobs it may be difficult to find a job that they meet the requirements for. That would increase unemployment.
If recycling is actually less beneficial than the alternatives (as glass specifically may be), then employment in the long run may decrease as the economy becomes healthier.
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "591"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32253%2fdoes-recycling-lead-to-fewer-jobs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Any invention that replaces human labor puts an end to that specific task. Glass recycling eliminates (or decrease) the need for silica-gathering task. Typewriter eliminates the need for printing press typesetter. Etc.
Those people whose tasks are eliminated will get reallocated to their most productive use. This might be in the form of job change (silica miner move to coal miner), or might be in the form of task redefinition (the book Prediction Machines describe how self-driving school bus might shift the main task of a school bus driver to an adult who oversees and "teaches" the schoolchildren.)
Going back to your question, recycling also creates new jobs. They need people to sort bottles, maybe drive a recycling truck, etc. So whether an invention leads to more or less job is ambiguous.
Added: While the effect on a specific industry might be quantifiable, if you take into account job mobility, etc. then the effect on the whole labor market is ambiguous.
Regardless, an invention that increases productivity should increase the size of the pie. We can produce more from the same resources. How that bigger pie is divided, however, is another very important question altogether.
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
(Re 3rd para) It's ambiguous only if we don't get into the specifics of each industry. Otherwise one may be able to answer it one way or the other for specific production and recycling processes.
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 2:59
4
$begingroup$
Just to extend with an example: in 1900, 40% of jobs were agricultural. In 2000, 2% of jobs were agricultural. If you ask people from 1900, they'll assume that the other 38% living in the year 2000 are now unemployed, because people from 1900 don't know what a sofware developer, SEO expert, smartphone manufacturer, ... is and they can't account for the employment that accompanies it. People will always find something to do. Automating a menial task opens the market to finding something more productive to do with the manhours saved through automation.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:56
2
$begingroup$
@zooby: The main point of recycling is not to lower manhours, but to lower environmental impact. This means that recycling does not necessarily lead to less employment. Consider the difference in needing to hire people to sort and wash the recycled glass, compared to indiscriminately throwing it all in a landfill and mining more silica. In theory, it's perfectly possible that glass sorting/washing leads to more jobs than the silica mining sector would lose out on. It might not be the case for glass specifically, but the general point still stands.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
@zooby: Compare this to e.g. SpaceX recycling its booster rockets. Here, the main incentive is to not have to build new boosters (which takes more time and effort than fixing a spent one), and the main goal is to lower manhours spent. For this example, your argument is valid, but you'd still miss the point that lowered hours would lead to more/cheaper launches, rather than the frequency of launches being unchanged and less labor being available.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
@Delioth: Less labor does incentivize a company to take on fewer jobs (unless they are able to just increase the workload - but then it's not "less labor" anymore either). Employees are effectively manhours to a company. When you need fewer manhours, you need fewer employees. No one is going to pay their employees for the hours they don't need to work due to lowered labor.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 21:57
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Any invention that replaces human labor puts an end to that specific task. Glass recycling eliminates (or decrease) the need for silica-gathering task. Typewriter eliminates the need for printing press typesetter. Etc.
Those people whose tasks are eliminated will get reallocated to their most productive use. This might be in the form of job change (silica miner move to coal miner), or might be in the form of task redefinition (the book Prediction Machines describe how self-driving school bus might shift the main task of a school bus driver to an adult who oversees and "teaches" the schoolchildren.)
Going back to your question, recycling also creates new jobs. They need people to sort bottles, maybe drive a recycling truck, etc. So whether an invention leads to more or less job is ambiguous.
Added: While the effect on a specific industry might be quantifiable, if you take into account job mobility, etc. then the effect on the whole labor market is ambiguous.
Regardless, an invention that increases productivity should increase the size of the pie. We can produce more from the same resources. How that bigger pie is divided, however, is another very important question altogether.
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
(Re 3rd para) It's ambiguous only if we don't get into the specifics of each industry. Otherwise one may be able to answer it one way or the other for specific production and recycling processes.
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 2:59
4
$begingroup$
Just to extend with an example: in 1900, 40% of jobs were agricultural. In 2000, 2% of jobs were agricultural. If you ask people from 1900, they'll assume that the other 38% living in the year 2000 are now unemployed, because people from 1900 don't know what a sofware developer, SEO expert, smartphone manufacturer, ... is and they can't account for the employment that accompanies it. People will always find something to do. Automating a menial task opens the market to finding something more productive to do with the manhours saved through automation.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:56
2
$begingroup$
@zooby: The main point of recycling is not to lower manhours, but to lower environmental impact. This means that recycling does not necessarily lead to less employment. Consider the difference in needing to hire people to sort and wash the recycled glass, compared to indiscriminately throwing it all in a landfill and mining more silica. In theory, it's perfectly possible that glass sorting/washing leads to more jobs than the silica mining sector would lose out on. It might not be the case for glass specifically, but the general point still stands.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
@zooby: Compare this to e.g. SpaceX recycling its booster rockets. Here, the main incentive is to not have to build new boosters (which takes more time and effort than fixing a spent one), and the main goal is to lower manhours spent. For this example, your argument is valid, but you'd still miss the point that lowered hours would lead to more/cheaper launches, rather than the frequency of launches being unchanged and less labor being available.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
@Delioth: Less labor does incentivize a company to take on fewer jobs (unless they are able to just increase the workload - but then it's not "less labor" anymore either). Employees are effectively manhours to a company. When you need fewer manhours, you need fewer employees. No one is going to pay their employees for the hours they don't need to work due to lowered labor.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 21:57
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Any invention that replaces human labor puts an end to that specific task. Glass recycling eliminates (or decrease) the need for silica-gathering task. Typewriter eliminates the need for printing press typesetter. Etc.
Those people whose tasks are eliminated will get reallocated to their most productive use. This might be in the form of job change (silica miner move to coal miner), or might be in the form of task redefinition (the book Prediction Machines describe how self-driving school bus might shift the main task of a school bus driver to an adult who oversees and "teaches" the schoolchildren.)
Going back to your question, recycling also creates new jobs. They need people to sort bottles, maybe drive a recycling truck, etc. So whether an invention leads to more or less job is ambiguous.
Added: While the effect on a specific industry might be quantifiable, if you take into account job mobility, etc. then the effect on the whole labor market is ambiguous.
Regardless, an invention that increases productivity should increase the size of the pie. We can produce more from the same resources. How that bigger pie is divided, however, is another very important question altogether.
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Any invention that replaces human labor puts an end to that specific task. Glass recycling eliminates (or decrease) the need for silica-gathering task. Typewriter eliminates the need for printing press typesetter. Etc.
Those people whose tasks are eliminated will get reallocated to their most productive use. This might be in the form of job change (silica miner move to coal miner), or might be in the form of task redefinition (the book Prediction Machines describe how self-driving school bus might shift the main task of a school bus driver to an adult who oversees and "teaches" the schoolchildren.)
Going back to your question, recycling also creates new jobs. They need people to sort bottles, maybe drive a recycling truck, etc. So whether an invention leads to more or less job is ambiguous.
Added: While the effect on a specific industry might be quantifiable, if you take into account job mobility, etc. then the effect on the whole labor market is ambiguous.
Regardless, an invention that increases productivity should increase the size of the pie. We can produce more from the same resources. How that bigger pie is divided, however, is another very important question altogether.
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
edited Oct 16 at 7:08
Giskard
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
15.5k4 gold badges26 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 2:20
ArtArt
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
1,6388 silver badges18 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
(Re 3rd para) It's ambiguous only if we don't get into the specifics of each industry. Otherwise one may be able to answer it one way or the other for specific production and recycling processes.
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 2:59
4
$begingroup$
Just to extend with an example: in 1900, 40% of jobs were agricultural. In 2000, 2% of jobs were agricultural. If you ask people from 1900, they'll assume that the other 38% living in the year 2000 are now unemployed, because people from 1900 don't know what a sofware developer, SEO expert, smartphone manufacturer, ... is and they can't account for the employment that accompanies it. People will always find something to do. Automating a menial task opens the market to finding something more productive to do with the manhours saved through automation.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:56
2
$begingroup$
@zooby: The main point of recycling is not to lower manhours, but to lower environmental impact. This means that recycling does not necessarily lead to less employment. Consider the difference in needing to hire people to sort and wash the recycled glass, compared to indiscriminately throwing it all in a landfill and mining more silica. In theory, it's perfectly possible that glass sorting/washing leads to more jobs than the silica mining sector would lose out on. It might not be the case for glass specifically, but the general point still stands.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
@zooby: Compare this to e.g. SpaceX recycling its booster rockets. Here, the main incentive is to not have to build new boosters (which takes more time and effort than fixing a spent one), and the main goal is to lower manhours spent. For this example, your argument is valid, but you'd still miss the point that lowered hours would lead to more/cheaper launches, rather than the frequency of launches being unchanged and less labor being available.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
@Delioth: Less labor does incentivize a company to take on fewer jobs (unless they are able to just increase the workload - but then it's not "less labor" anymore either). Employees are effectively manhours to a company. When you need fewer manhours, you need fewer employees. No one is going to pay their employees for the hours they don't need to work due to lowered labor.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 21:57
|
show 6 more comments
2
$begingroup$
(Re 3rd para) It's ambiguous only if we don't get into the specifics of each industry. Otherwise one may be able to answer it one way or the other for specific production and recycling processes.
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 2:59
4
$begingroup$
Just to extend with an example: in 1900, 40% of jobs were agricultural. In 2000, 2% of jobs were agricultural. If you ask people from 1900, they'll assume that the other 38% living in the year 2000 are now unemployed, because people from 1900 don't know what a sofware developer, SEO expert, smartphone manufacturer, ... is and they can't account for the employment that accompanies it. People will always find something to do. Automating a menial task opens the market to finding something more productive to do with the manhours saved through automation.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:56
2
$begingroup$
@zooby: The main point of recycling is not to lower manhours, but to lower environmental impact. This means that recycling does not necessarily lead to less employment. Consider the difference in needing to hire people to sort and wash the recycled glass, compared to indiscriminately throwing it all in a landfill and mining more silica. In theory, it's perfectly possible that glass sorting/washing leads to more jobs than the silica mining sector would lose out on. It might not be the case for glass specifically, but the general point still stands.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
@zooby: Compare this to e.g. SpaceX recycling its booster rockets. Here, the main incentive is to not have to build new boosters (which takes more time and effort than fixing a spent one), and the main goal is to lower manhours spent. For this example, your argument is valid, but you'd still miss the point that lowered hours would lead to more/cheaper launches, rather than the frequency of launches being unchanged and less labor being available.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 14:01
1
$begingroup$
@Delioth: Less labor does incentivize a company to take on fewer jobs (unless they are able to just increase the workload - but then it's not "less labor" anymore either). Employees are effectively manhours to a company. When you need fewer manhours, you need fewer employees. No one is going to pay their employees for the hours they don't need to work due to lowered labor.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 21:57
2
2
$begingroup$
(Re 3rd para) It's ambiguous only if we don't get into the specifics of each industry. Otherwise one may be able to answer it one way or the other for specific production and recycling processes.
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 2:59
$begingroup$
(Re 3rd para) It's ambiguous only if we don't get into the specifics of each industry. Otherwise one may be able to answer it one way or the other for specific production and recycling processes.
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 2:59
4
4
$begingroup$
Just to extend with an example: in 1900, 40% of jobs were agricultural. In 2000, 2% of jobs were agricultural. If you ask people from 1900, they'll assume that the other 38% living in the year 2000 are now unemployed, because people from 1900 don't know what a sofware developer, SEO expert, smartphone manufacturer, ... is and they can't account for the employment that accompanies it. People will always find something to do. Automating a menial task opens the market to finding something more productive to do with the manhours saved through automation.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:56
$begingroup$
Just to extend with an example: in 1900, 40% of jobs were agricultural. In 2000, 2% of jobs were agricultural. If you ask people from 1900, they'll assume that the other 38% living in the year 2000 are now unemployed, because people from 1900 don't know what a sofware developer, SEO expert, smartphone manufacturer, ... is and they can't account for the employment that accompanies it. People will always find something to do. Automating a menial task opens the market to finding something more productive to do with the manhours saved through automation.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:56
2
2
$begingroup$
@zooby: The main point of recycling is not to lower manhours, but to lower environmental impact. This means that recycling does not necessarily lead to less employment. Consider the difference in needing to hire people to sort and wash the recycled glass, compared to indiscriminately throwing it all in a landfill and mining more silica. In theory, it's perfectly possible that glass sorting/washing leads to more jobs than the silica mining sector would lose out on. It might not be the case for glass specifically, but the general point still stands.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:59
$begingroup$
@zooby: The main point of recycling is not to lower manhours, but to lower environmental impact. This means that recycling does not necessarily lead to less employment. Consider the difference in needing to hire people to sort and wash the recycled glass, compared to indiscriminately throwing it all in a landfill and mining more silica. In theory, it's perfectly possible that glass sorting/washing leads to more jobs than the silica mining sector would lose out on. It might not be the case for glass specifically, but the general point still stands.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 13:59
1
1
$begingroup$
@zooby: Compare this to e.g. SpaceX recycling its booster rockets. Here, the main incentive is to not have to build new boosters (which takes more time and effort than fixing a spent one), and the main goal is to lower manhours spent. For this example, your argument is valid, but you'd still miss the point that lowered hours would lead to more/cheaper launches, rather than the frequency of launches being unchanged and less labor being available.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 14:01
$begingroup$
@zooby: Compare this to e.g. SpaceX recycling its booster rockets. Here, the main incentive is to not have to build new boosters (which takes more time and effort than fixing a spent one), and the main goal is to lower manhours spent. For this example, your argument is valid, but you'd still miss the point that lowered hours would lead to more/cheaper launches, rather than the frequency of launches being unchanged and less labor being available.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 14:01
1
1
$begingroup$
@Delioth: Less labor does incentivize a company to take on fewer jobs (unless they are able to just increase the workload - but then it's not "less labor" anymore either). Employees are effectively manhours to a company. When you need fewer manhours, you need fewer employees. No one is going to pay their employees for the hours they don't need to work due to lowered labor.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 21:57
$begingroup$
@Delioth: Less labor does incentivize a company to take on fewer jobs (unless they are able to just increase the workload - but then it's not "less labor" anymore either). Employees are effectively manhours to a company. When you need fewer manhours, you need fewer employees. No one is going to pay their employees for the hours they don't need to work due to lowered labor.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Oct 16 at 21:57
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In the classical model, recycling (and most other changes in modes of consumption) doesn't change employment either way in the long term. The jobs gained by recycling are lost from other sectors and the jobs lost are gained.
Shifting away from the classical model, there are short term changes in employment from shocks in which recycling as a profession becomes more or less attractive to the point to induce workers to change jobs. During that switch unemployment will increase, but over time it should settle to its "natural" rate (which is determined by a host of unrelated factors).
Another factor in employment is in the skills possessed and required for jobs. Maybe many of the people currently employed in recycling are very low-skill workers. If these people lose their current jobs it may be difficult to find a job that they meet the requirements for. That would increase unemployment.
If recycling is actually less beneficial than the alternatives (as glass specifically may be), then employment in the long run may decrease as the economy becomes healthier.
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In the classical model, recycling (and most other changes in modes of consumption) doesn't change employment either way in the long term. The jobs gained by recycling are lost from other sectors and the jobs lost are gained.
Shifting away from the classical model, there are short term changes in employment from shocks in which recycling as a profession becomes more or less attractive to the point to induce workers to change jobs. During that switch unemployment will increase, but over time it should settle to its "natural" rate (which is determined by a host of unrelated factors).
Another factor in employment is in the skills possessed and required for jobs. Maybe many of the people currently employed in recycling are very low-skill workers. If these people lose their current jobs it may be difficult to find a job that they meet the requirements for. That would increase unemployment.
If recycling is actually less beneficial than the alternatives (as glass specifically may be), then employment in the long run may decrease as the economy becomes healthier.
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In the classical model, recycling (and most other changes in modes of consumption) doesn't change employment either way in the long term. The jobs gained by recycling are lost from other sectors and the jobs lost are gained.
Shifting away from the classical model, there are short term changes in employment from shocks in which recycling as a profession becomes more or less attractive to the point to induce workers to change jobs. During that switch unemployment will increase, but over time it should settle to its "natural" rate (which is determined by a host of unrelated factors).
Another factor in employment is in the skills possessed and required for jobs. Maybe many of the people currently employed in recycling are very low-skill workers. If these people lose their current jobs it may be difficult to find a job that they meet the requirements for. That would increase unemployment.
If recycling is actually less beneficial than the alternatives (as glass specifically may be), then employment in the long run may decrease as the economy becomes healthier.
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
$endgroup$
In the classical model, recycling (and most other changes in modes of consumption) doesn't change employment either way in the long term. The jobs gained by recycling are lost from other sectors and the jobs lost are gained.
Shifting away from the classical model, there are short term changes in employment from shocks in which recycling as a profession becomes more or less attractive to the point to induce workers to change jobs. During that switch unemployment will increase, but over time it should settle to its "natural" rate (which is determined by a host of unrelated factors).
Another factor in employment is in the skills possessed and required for jobs. Maybe many of the people currently employed in recycling are very low-skill workers. If these people lose their current jobs it may be difficult to find a job that they meet the requirements for. That would increase unemployment.
If recycling is actually less beneficial than the alternatives (as glass specifically may be), then employment in the long run may decrease as the economy becomes healthier.
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
answered Oct 16 at 20:39
gormadocgormadoc
1112 bronze badges
1112 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Economics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32253%2fdoes-recycling-lead-to-fewer-jobs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Are you asking "which is right" in [economics] theory, or in practice? You've already received the theoretical answer: it's an ambiguous effect without getting into specifics of production & recycling processes [or any aggregate labor statistics of those, which do actually exist]. But you already seem to sense that theoretical ambiguity. So is your question about empirical evidence?
$endgroup$
– Fizz
Oct 16 at 8:11
7
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 8:47
3
$begingroup$
The point of the broken window fallacy is that you cannot create value by destroying value, not that you cannot manipulate economic forces such that there are winners and losers. "The Economy" is not "a particular country's economy".
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:48
1
$begingroup$
@zooby If the net benefit were positive, it would be the creation of the motorway -- and, distally, the creation of the right-of-way for the motorway -- which led to that benefit, rather than the resources spent by the homeowners to replace those destroyed houses.
$endgroup$
– Sneftel
Oct 16 at 15:54
1
$begingroup$
You could throw all your garbage on the ground to create more work for janitors and cleanup crews. You could start fires to make more work for firefighters and rescue operators. You could become a bank robber to create more work for police and other security personnel. You could become a serial killer to create more work for forensics analysts and coroners. This argument could be taken to any extreme, but none of these contribute to the overall betterment of society.
$endgroup$
– Darrel Hoffman
Oct 16 at 17:35