Procyk 1

Luke Procyk

Professor Ferrara

English 1001

8 April 2022

Rhetorical Analysis: David Autor: “Will Automation take away all our jobs?”

Contemporary society is one with constant changes and innovation, which on one hand

has brought a significant increase in the world’s standard of living. On the other hand, the

changing experience has brought anxiety in the eyes of many people, reasonably fearing that

their livelihoods might be ruined from these changes. Seeing that these concerns would not

easily go away, David Autor, a veteran economist, decided to discuss the flaws in the talking

points those opposing automation. Autor’s arguments in favor of automation take a balanced

approach, dedicating the appropriate amount of time explaining his line of reasoning, both on

how automation has proven to be helpful historically as well as the line of thinking of his

opposition. Autor portrays and holds himself as an expert in economics, explaining where his

information comes from and explains his qualifications. Autor’s argument only turns briefly to

an emotional appeal, explaining that the concern from parents about automation led to positive

changes in the past that allowed people of that time to adapt to a changing world.

The bulk of Autor’s argument pertains to his line of reasoning on the benefits that past

generations have reaped from automation. Autor starts his arguments with the example of

automated teller machines, ATMs, explaining that the new innovations allowed banks to cut the

number of tellers they needed, which caused many to lose their jobs initially, however the

decreased operating costs ATMs brought allowed them to open new banks, resulting in even

more tellers being employed than before. “ATMs, automated teller machines, had two
 Procyk 2

countervailing effects on bank teller employment. As you would expect, they replaced a lot of

teller tasks. The number of tellers per branch fell by about a third. But banks quickly discovered

that it also was cheaper to open new branches, and the number of bank branches increased by

about 40 percent in the same time period. The net result was more branches and more tellers.”

(“David Autor: Will automation take…our jobs?” 2:36-3:01). It’s made clear how Autor came to

his conclusion, and is easy to understand for anyone that is not familiar with economic language.

Although this is just one example of the effects of automation, it’s presented that this scenario

plausibly could have been repeated in other sectors.

Autor makes sure to be thorough when explaining where his information comes from,

and spares no expense to portray his credibility. He gives credit to all the proper sources when

appropriate. He based his argument on a book by a Boston University economist, who is also a

veteran in the economic field relating to innovation. The “These facts, revealed in a recent book

by Boston University economist James Bessen, raise an intriguing question: what are all those

tellers doing, and why hasn't automation eliminated their employment by now?” (“David Autor:

Will automation take… our jobs?”0:24-0:34). Bessen’s work is not relied on heavily during

Autor’s talk, yet uses it mainly to provide additional backing to his claims, and to reinforce the

idea that automation would actually benefit the labor force. Autor also demonstrates credibility

in his talk through the tone he speaks to the audience in. It is almost reflective of the overall

message of his talk, that automation is not a problem which is unprecedented, but rather is an

issue that we have seen before and will be overcome. Autor most clearly “told us a heartwarming

tale about the distant past, the recent past, maybe the present, but probably not the future.

Because everybody knows that this time is different. Right? … Of course this time is different.

Every time is different. On … occasions in the last 200 years, scholars and activists have raised
 Procyk 3

the alarm that we are running out of work and making … obsolete: for example, the Luddites in

the early 1800s;”(“David Autor: Will automation take… our jobs?”16:00-16:31). The way in

which Autor addresses the claims that every time is different, is one that makes the argument

sound ridiculous. By demonstrating that opponents to innovation make the same points yet have

consistently been incorrect, he makes an effective attack against his opposition. Making

consistently incorrect claims would naturally hurt one’s legitimacy, which points out to its full

extent.

In the later remarks of his talk, he makes a call to action to those who are concerned

about their job security, validating that their concerns aren’t inherently wrong, but instead

motivating them to action not by clashing with automation in an uphill battle, but rather through

advocating for a robust education system which will allow the country’s youth to be prepared for

a changing world. He compares the Great Recession, still fresh in the minds of many, to other

economic upheavals in the past, proclaiming “here is some encouraging news. We have faced

equally momentous economic transformations in the past, and we have come through them

successfully. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, when automation was eliminating vast numbers

of agricultural jobs… the farm states faced a threat of mass unemployment, a generation of youth

no longer needed on the farm but not prepared for industry. Rising to this challenge, they took

the radical step of requiring that their entire youth population remain in school and continue their

education to the ripe old age of 16. This was called the high school movement, and it was a

radically expensive thing to do. Not only did they have to invest in the schools, but those kids

couldn't work at their jobs. It also turned out to be one of the best investments the US made in

the 20th century. It gave us the most skilled, the most flexible and the most productive workforce

in the world.”(David Autor: Will automation take…our jobs? 12:39-13:45). Autor speaks to
 Procyk 4

those who feel fearful for their livelihoods, telling them changes that feel unique to them have

been felt by others before and that they have overcome those challenges. He seeks to empower

the people who feel powerless in the face of market forces, reminding them that they do have

power in the US’s institutions, and that they can be used as a means for positive change.

Autor’s argument, like all others, is not without its flaws. At points during his arguments

some of his points could be perceived as flawed. When talking about automation in relation to

his opponents, he points out that all opponents to automation have had the same talking points,

effectively hindering their credibility. He argued that “Professor Autor has told us a

heartwarming tale about the distant past, the recent past, maybe the present, but probably not the

future. Because everybody knows that this time is different. Right? Is this time different? Of

course this time is different. Every time is different.” (“David Autor: Will automation take… our

jobs” 16:00-16:18). There is some substance in his argument that suggests this statement could

be a false analogy. It’s entirely possible to argue that automation might be different, as he also

argues that automation has made new fields that many wouldn’t imagine ever being needed.

Perhaps human labor itself might one day be entirely usurped by automation.

It’s overall made clear to the audience that Autor expertly, although not perfectly, makes

usage of rhetorical appeals. His line of reasoning is coherent and is understandable to outsiders

of the field. He proves himself a credible speaker both in the way he carries himself and through

his calm but not urgent tone. Autor also makes it clear that he understands the anxiety that many

in his audience feel, and makes a call to action, encouraging them to advocate for change in a

positive way that will secure a future for themselves and their families. The most important

takeaway I got from my analysis is that flaws in an argument are hard to find, but they can often

be used to subtly and effectively sway an audience if they are not caught.