Automation can eliminate lots of jobs without replacement jobs.
But other times will also created new higher level jobs.
Especially when automation impacts a companies total cost for a high-demand independently consumed service or product. So that decrease costs can translate into decreased pricing for an upwardly elastic demand. And the revenue growth results offsets the need for fewer workers per revenue.
—
But most jobs within a company are only part of a product or service. With other parts not as automatable.
In this case, even automation that produces higher level jobs is likely to produce far fewer of them. Since savings in part of a value chain increase profits but impact total costs, and therefore pricing, at a much lower percentage. So increased demand is less likely to offset job reduction.
This is also true for any product or service from one company whose demand is anchored to any complimentary services or products from other companies.
—
Worse still, automation taking over only part of a high employee count, low skill job is very bad for employees. The number of workers is likely reduced, and as the job becomes simpler, their replacability goes up. Their value, and therefore pay and respect, go down.
They start to get managed ruthlessly, like just another part of the overall automation.
I expect the vast majority of Amazon’s headcount, across each of its logistical divisions, fall into that latter category.
This seems a bit backwards. Most demand for automating existing jobs is driven by the specific goal to reduce workers and labour costs, so of course there will be fewer jobs afterwards than before - otherwise the automation didn't fulfill its goal from the companies' POV.
Automation is to reduce cost per revenue, by reducing jobs per revenue.
Which is not quite the same as an absolute desire to eliminate jobs.
The result is initially lower employee count, but in cases where the automation significantly impacts total costs, and therefore pricing, of an independently consumed product or service, with upwardly elastic demand: the lower cost & pricing will trigger growth that also creates a job growth effect.
But those are special conditions.
As I point out, and you do too, in most situations efficiencies reduce jobs and improve profits, more than they increase demand that would create more (or mitigate lost) jobs.
Yeah, that's essentially saying, "yep, your slice of the pie will become ever smaller, but that's fine, because what you get in absolute terms will stay the same - the pie just has to keep growing exponentially forever".
It's obvious that this is not a sustainable solution.
(And that's assuming the company fully passes the reduced labour costs on to the consumer and doesn't just pocket it as increased profit margins)
But, now that amazon is saving money on labor costs, where does that extra money go? Into the pockets of shareholders, who may then go out and use that to start other businesses which hire people, or increase their consumption of goods and services which also results in greater employment.
Meaning money will likely go to continued investments in automation, corporate acquisitions, capital investments (high & low tech) like real estate for logistics, etc.
But other times will also created new higher level jobs.
Especially when automation impacts a companies total cost for a high-demand independently consumed service or product. So that decrease costs can translate into decreased pricing for an upwardly elastic demand. And the revenue growth results offsets the need for fewer workers per revenue.
—
But most jobs within a company are only part of a product or service. With other parts not as automatable.
In this case, even automation that produces higher level jobs is likely to produce far fewer of them. Since savings in part of a value chain increase profits but impact total costs, and therefore pricing, at a much lower percentage. So increased demand is less likely to offset job reduction.
This is also true for any product or service from one company whose demand is anchored to any complimentary services or products from other companies.
—
Worse still, automation taking over only part of a high employee count, low skill job is very bad for employees. The number of workers is likely reduced, and as the job becomes simpler, their replacability goes up. Their value, and therefore pay and respect, go down.
They start to get managed ruthlessly, like just another part of the overall automation.
I expect the vast majority of Amazon’s headcount, across each of its logistical divisions, fall into that latter category.