What impact will automation — the so-called “rise of the robots” — have on wages and employment over the coming decades? This question crops up whenever unemployment rises nowadays.
In the early 19th century, David Ricardo considered the possibility that machines would replace labor. Karl Marx followed him.
Around the same time, the Luddites smashed textile machinery that they saw as taking their jobs.
The fear of machines then died away. New jobs — at higher wages, in easier conditions and for more people — were soon created and readily found, but that does not mean that the initial fear was wrong. On the contrary, it must be right in the very long run: Sooner or later, we will run out of jobs. For some countries, this long-run prospect might be uncomfortably close.
So, what are people supposed to do if machines can do all — or most of — their work?
Recently, automation in manufacturing has expanded even to areas where labor has been relatively cheap. In 2011, Chinese companies spent 8 billion yuan (US$1.3 billion) on industrial robots. Foxconn, which builds iPhones and iPads for Apple Inc, hopes to have its first fully automated plant in operation sometime in the next five to 10 years.
The substitution of capital for labor is moving beyond manufacturing. The most mundane example is one you will see in every supermarket: checkout staff replaced by a single employee monitoring self-service machines. (Though perhaps this is not automation proper — the supermarket has just shifted some of the work of shopping onto the customer).
For those who dread the threat that automation poses to low-skilled labor, a ready answer is to train people for better jobs. However, technological progress is also eating up these better jobs. A wide range of jobs that we think of now as skilled, secure and irreducibly human may be the next casualties of technological change.
As a recent article in the Financial Times said, in two areas notoriously immune to productivity increases — education and healthcare — technology is already reducing the demand for skilled labor.
Translation, data analysis, legal research — a whole range of high-skilled jobs may wither away. So, what will the new generation of workers be trained for?
Optimists airily assert that “many new types of job will be created.” They ask us to think of the lead drivers of multicar road trains (once our electric cars join up “convoy-style”), big data analysts or robot mechanics. That does not sound like too many new jobs to me.
Imagine a handful of technicians replacing a fleet of taxi drivers and truckers, a small cadre of human mechanics maintaining a full robot work force, or a single data analyst and his software replacing a bank of quantitative researchers. What produces value in such an economy will no longer be wage labor.
We can see hints of that future now. Twitter, the social-media giant, is an employment minnow. It is valued at US$9 billion, but employs just 400 people worldwide — about as many as a medium-size carpet factory.
It is not true that automation has caused the rise of unemployment since 2008. What is noticeable, though, is that structural unemployment — the unemployment that remains even after economies have recovered — has been on an upward trend over the last 25 years. We are finding it increasingly difficult to keep unemployment down.
Indeed, the days when we in Britain thought it was normal to have an unemployment rate of 2 percent have long since passed.
It was considered a great achievement of the last government that it brought unemployment down to 5 percent at the height of an unsustainable boom, and it only succeeded in doing so by subsidizing a lot of unnecessary jobs and useless training schemes.
No doubt some of the claims made for robots replacing human labor will prove as far-fetched now as they have in the past. However, it is hard to resist the conclusion that “technological unemployment,” as John Maynard Keynes called it, will continue to rise, as more and more people become redundant.
The optimist may reply that the pessimist’s imagination is too weak to envisage the full range of wonderful new job possibilities that automation is opening up, but perhaps the optimist’s imagination is too weak to imagine a different trajectory — toward a world in which people enjoy the fruits of automation as leisure rather than as additional income.
During the Industrial Revolution, working hours increased by 20 percent as factories replaced feasting. With our post-machine standard of living, we can afford to shed some of the Puritan guilt that has, for centuries, kept our noses to the grindstone.
Today we find a great deal of work-sharing in poor countries. It is the accepted means of making a limited amount of available work go around. Economists call it “disguised unemployment.”
If escape from poverty is the goal, disguised unemployment is a bad thing. However, if machines have already engineered the escape from poverty, then work-sharing is a sensible way of “spreading the work” that still has to be done by human labor.
If one machine can cut necessary human labor by half, why make half of the work force redundant, rather than employing the same number for half the time? Why not take advantage of automation to reduce the average working week from 40 hours to 30, and then to 20, and then to 10, with each diminishing block of labor time counting as a full-time job?
This would be possible if the gains from automation were not mostly seized by the rich and powerful, but were distributed fairly instead.
Rather than try to repel the advance of the machine, which is all that the Luddites could imagine, we should prepare for a future of more leisure, which automation makes possible.
However, to do that, we first need a revolution in social thinking.
Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China