Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 7, 2020 at 14:37 comment added Mike J If there is a better idea then please share. I encourage this.
Feb 6, 2020 at 21:38 comment added heh I agree it's a difficult challenge. But "we have to measure with something" isn't going to fly in most contexts. Luckily, this is an active area of research and I tried to provide the OP with a place to start looking. Hopefully it proves useful.
Feb 6, 2020 at 21:35 comment added Brennan Im not convinced that this would work as a valid proxy, although, I can’t come up with a better one
Feb 6, 2020 at 21:20 comment added Mike J True its not clear of the level of detail. However, if there is no data available one need to find some sort of proxy.
Feb 6, 2020 at 20:57 comment added heh It's not clear what level this work is being performed at (e.g., Masters' thesis or just motivation for a toy model), but in general it would be extremely difficult to argue that labour-augmenting technology improvements are a good instrument for the robot population.
Feb 6, 2020 at 18:49 history edited Mike J CC BY-SA 4.0
added 57 characters in body
Feb 6, 2020 at 17:58 comment added Mike J In this case we don't have a measure of robots. So a good proxy would be to use capital but more specifically equipment as robots would most likely fit into this category. Sorry about not being more specific. the more use of equipment instead of human labor (hours) would represent automation.
Feb 6, 2020 at 15:36 comment added Brennan How would this separate the automation component of capital? As you say this would only “indicate that capital services are increasing relative to labor” and have no bearing on the concentration of automation
Feb 6, 2020 at 14:40 history edited Mike J CC BY-SA 4.0
added 83 characters in body
Feb 6, 2020 at 14:31 history answered Mike J CC BY-SA 4.0