A “Wastage of Men”: Technological Progress and Unemployment in the United States ESTER FANO During the depression of the 1890s, cyclical instability of employ ment became an acknowledged phenomenon, but the long-term displacement of labor due to technological progress was not yet perceived to be a threat. As recovery from this long depression mitigated the unemployment problem, it appeared that the fluctu ating pool of unemployed people would not grow from one downturn to the next—that invention, innovation, and the opening of new areas of economic activity would eventually reabsorb displaced workers. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, in contrast, the prevailing view differed: because of waning investment opportunities, unem ployment would progressively grow. Productivity-enhancing and cost saving industrial innovations could only reduce employment and hinder recovery. If one compares perceptions of the effect of tech nological progress on long-term employment trends, a remarkable difference is evident. In the late 19th century, investment opportuni ties provided by population growth, the availability of frontier land, and new inventions seemed to provide a basis for the optimistic assumption that displaced labor would be reemployed. But this optimism had disappeared by the 1930s; in the environment of the Great Depression, labor displacement was regarded as part of the collapse, a contribution to the general problem, while technological innovation could not contribute to the solution. The sustained economic performance after World War II—the result of an epoch-making innovation, government-managed demand—made low unemployment and relative economic stability Prof. Fano, a 1990 associate of the Warren Center for Studies in American History at Harvard University, teaches economic history at the Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche of the University of Rome. She has studied the industrial and agricultural policies of fascism in Italy, and several aspects of the history of the New Deal. She wishes to thank H. Brand, E. Pugliese, P. Sylos-Labini, G. Wright, Tim Mason, and the Technology and Culture referees for useful criticism.© 1991 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/91/3202-0003$01.00 264 Technological Progress and Unemployment in the United States 265 attainable goals. As Paul Samuelson put it, adequate spending policies could permanently “cheat the devil of ineffective demand,” thereby al lowing productivity-enhancing innovations and the deployment of new industries to stimulate economic expansion. Yet the threat of unem ployment still affects millions of people either permanently or for considerable periods of their working lives. The taming of the forces that underlie the business cycle did not wipe out drives toward inequality and marginalization in the labor markets. Poverty, alleged “natural” rates of unemployment, and the hard, cold facts of dein dustrialization recommend a rereading of the “dismal” political economists of the 1930s. But first we need to review some of the debates of the 19th century. The 19th Century: Recurring Hard Times but Long-Run Optimism In the first half of the 19th century, the question of labor displace ment by mechanization was vigorously debated in Britain, as the exchanges between Ricardo and McCulloch show.1 The first American author to mention the problem, the Reverend Joseph Alden of Williams College, wrote in 1837 that the situation in Europe was severe enough to warrant the payment of an indemnity to displaced workers, but that no problem was yet evident in the United States. In The First Principles ofPolitical Economy, published more than forty years later, Alden did not mention the question at all.2 Economic conditions in the United States during the first half of the 19th century made the British debate something that was not perti nent here. Early experience with technological improvements and the availability of new fertile land had not resulted in diminishing returns in agriculture; in addition, labor shortages ruled out competition for manufacturing jobs among the industrial workers.3 This peculiar 'A recent account of the Barton-Ricardo-McCulloch controversy, with exhaustive bibliographical information, is in Maxine Berg, The Machinery Question and the Making of PoliticalEconomy, 1815—1848 (Cambridge, 1980). For a general survey of the debate, see A. Gourvitch, Technological Change and Employment (Philadelphia, 1940; reprint 1967); K. Gehri, Du chômage technologique: contribution à l'histoire...
Read full abstract