Why automation shouldn’t be the end of employment – or value

People who worry about progress destroying jobs often forget that it also creates entire new industries nobody could have imagined even a generation earlier


Ian Kelly

Ian Kelly

Fund Manager, Equity Value

For a striking example of the impact technological advances can have on whole industries, consider the fate of the humble knocker-upper. During the 19th century and a surprising portion of the 20th, these folk would, for a minimal fee, wake you up in time for work, tapping on your bedroom window with a suitably long stick (or, in a few instances, a peashooter). Then the alarm clock became widely available and the job ceased to exist.

The knocker-upper has come to mind a few times of late, here on The Value Perspective – largely because we have been fielding an increasing number of questions relating to the potential impact of automation on employment. More often than not, these questions tend to be followed by others relating to how rapidly the world is changing and the implications this has for the future – or otherwise – of value investing.

Regular visitors to this site will know we make no pretence of being able to tell the future – however, we are very happy to look to the past for pointers and, for the purposes of this article, that brings us to a paper on the history of employment in the US, which was published in the 1960s by the country’s National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Part of the paper looked at the primary areas of employment for US workers for each decade from 1870 to 1960 and, as you can see from the table below, farming was for some time the dominant industry. In 1870, it employed just over half of all people working in the US and in 1900 it still employed two-fifths. By 1930, however, that proportion was around a fifth of the working population and, by 1960, it was less than a tenth.

Percentage of US workforce employed in farming by decade (1870 to 1960)





















Source: National Bureau of Economic Research

In short, as an employer in the US, farming went the way of the knocker-upper – and today it employs just 1.5% of the country’s working population. What is interesting about the NBER paper, however, is how little the other industries that were then pre-eminent in the US picked up the slack – indeed, if you had known just how little at the time, things would have looked very bleak indeed.

In 1900, for example, the three-fifths of US workers who were employed outside farming included 20.3% in manufacturing, 13.7% in trade, 6.2% in domestics, 5.7% in construction and 3.9% in transport. Six decades later, the only two of these primary non-farming industries  that had expanded as employers were manufacturing and trade, which in 1960 accounted for 23.2% and 19% of US workers respectively.

If you had had a crystal ball in 1900 and so knew 40% of the US workforce was in a dying industry while most of the other primary sectors were going to shrink as employers, you may well have concluded what has gone on to become the world’s largest economy was in for a very bad time indeed. That, however, would have been to ignore what the NEBR categorised as ‘other secondary’ industries.

These were the sectors nobody was really counting or even paying much attention to – the thousands of nascent industries that went from employing 10% of the US workforce in 1900 to four times that by 1960. When people talk about automation today, they worry – perfectly reasonably – about, say, the truck-driving jobs that will be lost and then the gas station, parking, motel and diner jobs that would naturally follow.

In 1900, cars were as rare in the US as alarm clocks were in the UK so, if you did not want to walk, your only transport option was the horse. As cars became more commonplace, people then worried about what would happen to everyone who was employed in stables and other horse-related sectors – and yet, in addition to working for the auto manufacturers, they took jobs in gas stations, carparks and so forth.

Each new decade brings entire new industries that few, if any, could have imagined a generation earlier. It seems unduly pessimistic to suggest that, as the human race becomes ever more innovative, the coming years will prove different.


Ian Kelly

Ian Kelly

Fund Manager, Equity Value

I joined Schroders European equity research team in 2007 as an analyst specialising in automobiles. After two years I added the insurance sector to my coverage. In early 2010 I moved into a fund management role, and then took over management of two offshore funds investing in European and Global companies seeking to offer income and capital growth. 

Important Information:

The views and opinions displayed are those of Nick Kirrage, Andrew Lyddon, Kevin Murphy, Andrew Williams, Andrew Evans, Simon Adler, Juan Torres Rodriguez, Liam Nunn, Vera German and Roberta Barr, members of the Schroder Global Value Equity Team (the Value Perspective Team), and other independent commentators where stated.

They do not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other Schroders' communications, strategies or funds. The Team has expressed its own views and opinions on this website and these may change.

This article is intended to be for information purposes only and it is not intended as promotional material in any respect. Reliance should not be placed on the views and information on the website when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. Nothing in this article should be construed as advice. The sectors/securities shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not to be considered a recommendation to buy/sell.

Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested.