Competing with Robots: Firm-Level Evidence from France

Abstract

We thank our discussant Robert Seamans as well as David Autor and John Van Reenen for their comments. We also thank SYMOP for generously sharing their data with us.

The Finnish Pension System and Its Future Challenges

“…Another trend that possibly weakens the tax and contribution bases is the potential fall in labour income caused by technological development. Robotisation and digitalisation infl uence the relative use of labour and capital in production, factor income shares and possibly also unemployment (Acemoglu et al, 2020). A related trend that is already observable in the Finnish labour market is the polarisation of jobs and wages.…”

Robotization and Welfare Trends in Future

“…They also declare that robot acceptance commits to the decrease in the production work force portion by decreasing the covariance between firm-level value added and labor share, and this is because adopters are large and enlarge further as they observe sizable relative decreases in their work force portions. The 20% rise in robot adopting is resulted with a 3.2% increase in industry unemployment [12].…”

“…Acemoglu et al [12] at that point feature a few countervailing powers that push against the uprooting impact and may infer that computerization, AI, and apply autonomy could build labor demand. First, the replacement of modest machines for human work makes an "efficiency impact": as the expense of delivering mechanized assignments decays, the economy will grow and expand the interest for work in nonautomated errands.…”

“…Second, according to Acemoglu et al [12], "capital aggregation" activated by expanded mechanization (which raises the interest for capital) will likewise raise the interest for work. Third, mechanization does not simply work at the broad edge-supplanting undertakings recently performed by work-yet at the escalated edge also, expanding the efficiency of machines in assignments that were recently robotized.…”

“…Despite the fact that these countervailing impacts are significant, they are for the most part deficient to incite a "balanced growth path," implying that regardless of whether these effects were incredible, continuous computerization would at present lessen the offer of work in national income (and potentially employment). Acemoglu et al [12] contend that there is an all the more remarkable countervailing power that expands the interest for work just as the portion of work in national income: the formation of new undertakings, capacities, and exercises in which work has a near preferred position relative to machines. The production of new errands creates a restoration effect straightforwardly counterbalancing the displacement effect [12].…”