We have to start preparing for a world in which robots do the work
Forecasts now suggest that robots and intelligent automation will eliminate between 38% and 50% of today’s jobs; which for some people is good news. Furthermore, the evidence points to substitution at all levels, not just the so-called 4Ds (dull, dirty, dangerous and demeaning), and will have a major impact on our societies. As algorithms learn to do more and do more things, more efficiently than humans (more cheaply, more quickly and with less errors), we will have to rethink the concept of work if life is to have any meaning.
Imposing taxes on companies that use robots is not sustainable: handicapping innovation may slow down the inevitable, but calculating the function or ratio by which robots replace workers soon becomes meaningless. History shows that trying to stop the progress of technology has never worked, and would be unlikely to do so in today’s highly competitive world.
What history does show us is that the wheel, the loom, the tractor or the refrigerator initially put many people out of work, but soon created new economic models that ended up giving work to many more. What if the development of artificial intelligence, in reality, ends up creating many more jobs than it eliminates, as Gartner’s research suggests, or allowed existing jobs to add greater value? A few days ago, I wrote that I would be very happy for algorithms to carry out the less interesting, repetitive parts of my work. There are tasks I continue to carry out myself because I’m not comfortable subcontracting them, but I can’t say they make me leap out of bed in the morning. The idea of them being carried out by an algorithm more quickly, more efficiently and more accurately is appealing and would free up time to do other more rewarding things: I’ve never had a problem filling my working hours, instead it’s about finding time to do what I really want to do. The biggest problem with innovation is not the lack of ideas, but the lack of time to put them into practice: it is difficult to innovate when you spend so much time doing things a machine could do more efficiently.
A recent article by Per Bylund, the Oklahoma State University anarcho-capitalist thinker in Quartz explains how societies progress through automation and that trying to prevent or hinder is not only impossible, but irresponsible. Bylund argues that if everyone had been permanently exhausted from working in the fields, nobody would have had the time needed to invent the tractor.
Obviously, eliminating certain jobs will generate social tension: no one likes it, even if their work is dull, dirty, dangerous and dear, it provides a monthly wage. If people are to be replaced by robots, a process that seems inevitable, then they will have to be given something else to do, which may require skills acquisition and training, and they will have to be provided with an income.
Rather than trying to halt the tide of automation to protect a small number of workers at the expense of everybody else, our governments should do more to help those who are being replaced to move to new jobs and occupations with a future that are likely to continue generating value. Some might usefully ask whether miners or taxi drivers, to mention two professions at risk of imminent substitution, are really going to retrain as software developers. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), says governments should embrace the technological and digitalization revolution rather than trying to delay or contain its effects, and focus on helping displaced workers find jobs instead of opting for solutions such as subsidies or rolling out universal basic income. Obviously, the ITIF has a long way to go before they can come to accept the idea of an unconditional basic income (UBI).
The issue of UBI has divided academics and politicians: some argue its introduction would reduce incentives to train or seek new jobs, slow down economic growth and end up hurting the very people it aims to help, while advocates say that in addition to helping prepare for a future where our relationship with work is completely redefined, it allows people to create a better work-life balance, freeing them from the immediate need to obtain a salary. For these and other reasons, I personally tend to side with the advocates of UBI as a characteristic of the society of the future: it is neither left, not right: it is forward. At the same time, having been a professor for the last 27 years, I also think that the education system needs to be thoroughly redesigned to help meet the needs of a rapidly changing labor market (you know, when you have a hammer, all problems look like a nail! :-)
We will only really know the needs of tomorrow’s world when we get there. Meanwhile, our entrepreneurs will need to have all the automation technology allows, along with the required human capital, while at the same time our governments will have to address the needs of workforces being replaced by automation. This is not going to be a speedy, painless transformation, but the outcome could take humanity on to a new stage, based perhaps, on a more balanced approach than at present.
(En español, aquí)
