Does competition create or kill jobs?




This is a question that has bugged discussions on economic movements for ages and there is no clear answer to it. Because competitions does kill jobs and it does create jobs. Sounds contradictory? It does but it’s true nonetheless.

Think about the artisans of the pre industrial revolution era. They were the dominant manufacturing force in the world. An artisan could be identified from his product as each product embodied skill of the artisan concerned. People would travel far and wide in search of an excellent product and search out the artisan whose skill was considered the best in the market in that specific product.

Things changed drastically after the industrial revolution. Individual skills were no longer in demand and artifacts became products for niche markets. Skill became ability to crank machines for specific hours within a factory and products became distinguishable only by their labels. Artisans became factory workers and they were labelled differently. New jobs were created. Engineers were needed to maintain machines or make machines. Managers were needed to run the factory and later the business.

The whole structure of the required skill sets changed. The old skills fell by the way side. Those who couldn’t upskill themselves became unemployed. Jobs were lost and jobs were created.

But competition like never before became intense. Enterprise took up a new flavour. Those who owned factories or businesses wanted to raise their profitability by producing more by employing less. This created search for those people who were capable of improving the existing technology or creating an entirely new set of technology to produce the same product more efficiently. Automation became the buzzword. This again created the need for new skill sets making the old ones obsolete. Jobs were killed and new job opportunities were created.

With computerisation there came another wave of change and now we have machine learning and artificial intelligence. This again is creating an absolutely new paradigm making existing job profiles obsolete.

What, however, needs to be noted here is that with each paradigm shift there has been a change in the levels of prosperity. For example, a few decades ago air-conditioners were for the rich to enjoy. It’s now part of middle class life. Cars were not easy to buy or affordable even a few years back; now, it’s a matter of concern for traffic managers.

With such changes in life and globalisation, impact of change and obsolescence of old skill has started to claim more victims than we had known previously. To this extent, therefore, the task of managing the change so that it doesn’t lead to a social and political disruption has become a major challenge. And policy makers are increasingly being called upon to devise ways and means to manage the transition so that the human impact could be minimised.

Related Posts

1 comment

  1. Routine tasks should be automated.observe the life style of a working married woman to understand this better. She does many tasks on weekends to create semi processed tasks which can then be easily handled by other family members for an end result. Foods in fridge, laundry, gardening. Maintenance are few such activity heads. She only has that skill to bring it to the semi processed form. That's why she is lady of the house...which one can't expect to be handled by maid. She can even semi process for the duration of her absence. Coming back to jobs, the mgnrega has created 100 days job for a family, but hasn't attained even 50 in many of the states. Why? Because it does not take care of skill enhancement.. n assumes people to continue to live in that level throughout. We need to have a vision for everybody..whether achieved or not. That's how we create ecosystems of people getting upgraded to the next level of ability n aspiration. When automation happens, manual jobs are killed. How many menial jobs got killed may be an indicator of prosperity even. Provided of course the overall employment is taken care of. I suggested job creation for people to take care of plants...may be RS. 50 per plant per.month. this was in last column. Look at sadguru he is asking to contribute RS. 42 per plant..for Cauvery Calling movement. For whichever River or stream.or nallah.is calling,,it is the need of the day, and is a big avenue.for climate change. 3 major crops a year is the end indicator. Any village with 3 seasons of cropping won't have migration. Starts with RS. 50 per plant per month expenses. One needs to have a broader view to see the level of coordination cooperation coexistence and contribution to get rid of competition...we should not be so superficial .. to have top line numbers with unthoughtful bottomlines.

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive