Much has been written about the “future of work” and much of it makes for gloomy reading. Study after study predicts that automation will upend entire industries and leave millions unemployed. A 2013 paper by two Oxford professors even suggested that machines could replace 47 percent of jobs in the US within “a decade or two.”
Conclusions like these sustain the narrative that the future will inevitably be jobless. Yet this view is favored primarily by the corporate sector and supported by negative trends in the so-called gig economy; workers and trade unions have played little role in the conversation. If that were to change, the future of work could look very different.
Three common assumptions skew forecasts of automation’s impact on employment. Addressing each is essential to protect workers’ rights and change the fatalistic storyline of the prevailing narrative.
The first assumption is that fully automated jobs will displace workers in the near future. This view is little more than conjecture and even those using the same data can draw different conclusions.
For example, a 2017 McKinsey study, drawing on similar datasets as the 2013 Oxford research, found that only 5 percent of jobs in the US could be fully automated, but that about 60 percent of US jobs could be partly automated.
In other words, automation does not mean that human work must disappear, only that it could become more productive.
If anything, current trends underscore why it is important to democratize how technology is built into business processes.
When major corporations introduce innovations to speed up production — like handsets to time warehouse workers in Amazon’s facilities — the unintended consequence can be a decline in productivity. For many workers, the way that technology is adopted might be more relevant than the technology itself.
The second assumption is that automation will not benefit most workers. However, people and politics — not machines — will determine how workers fare.
If we accept the view that technology will increase overall productivity (a point that remains disputed given the low levels of productivity growth in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries during the past decade), then workers and political leaders could focus on advocating for a better work-life balance.
The fight for an eight-hour workday was waged more than a century ago, and the spaces created by the current discussion allow for negotiating a shorter working week. Some unions are already doing this; more should follow.
Finally, despite the hype, automation is not the most pressing issue for labor. Technology can be disruptive, but the biggest concerns for workers today are the ones they feel most directly: underemployment, precarious employment and stagnant wages.
According to the International Labour Organization’s World Employment and Social Outlook 2018, 1.4 billion people worldwide are in “vulnerable forms of employment” in the informal sector, compared with 192 million who are unemployed.
To be sure, today’s new technologies are affecting workers in adverse ways. That has always been true and people will continue to be displaced from one economic sector to another.
However, while technological innovation creates new opportunities, today’s gig economy, in particular, reflects how it can also weaken employees’ rights and increase economic insecurity.
Workers’ fears are real, which is why the labor movement has been fighting to defend workers in vulnerable situations. Expanding the concept of Just Transition, used in climate-related dislocations, to technology-related disruptions would be a valuable innovation for ensuring that automation leaves no one behind.
However, we should not accept the anxious narrative of a workless world. Technology and economic development are contested fields, and unions should focus on improving workplace conditions, organizing workers in new industries, and challenging the authoritarian business models that give employees little say over how their companies function.
Positive signs are emerging. Labor organizing is growing in the services sector. Employees are lobbying for better pay in some of the world’s largest corporations. Workers in the US are demanding — and often receiving — a living wage.
The next step is to ensure that the effects of automation feature more prominently in union organizing. The future of work is not predetermined; the story is still being written. The most important question, as always, is who gets to wield the pen.
Bruno Dobrusin is coordinator of the One Million Climate Jobs campaign at the Green Economy Network.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past