The four futures of work: preparing for good work, come what may

Predictions are a flawed method for preparing for the future of work. Instead, we must look to scenario planning to help us ready workers for multiple eventualities.

This article is an extract from the RSA report ‘The Four Futures of Work: coping with uncertainties in the age of radical technologies’

In a new report from the RSA Future Work Centre we outline the results of our own exercise in scenario planning with leading engineers Arup, detailing four very different scenarios for the future of work in the UK:

The Big Tech Economy describes a world where most technologies develop at a rapid pace, from self-driving cars to 3D printing…

A new machine age delivers significant improvements in the quality of products and public services, with the cost of everyday goods including transport and energy plummeting. However, unemployment and economic insecurity creep upwards, and the spoils of growth are off-shored and concentrated in a handful of US and Chinese tech behemoths. The dizzying pace of change leaves workers and unions with little time to respond.

The Precision Economy portrays a future of hyper-surveillance…

Technological progress is moderate, but a proliferation of sensors allows firms to create value by capturing and analysing more information on objects, people and the environment. Gig platforms take on more prominence and rating systems become pervasive in the workplace. While some lament these trends as invasive, others believe they have ushered in a more meritocratic society where effort is more generously rewarded. A hyper connected society also leads to wider positive spill overs, with less waste as fewer resources are left idle.

The Exodus Economy is characterised by an economic slowdown…

A crash on the scale of 2008 dries up funding for innovation and keeps the UK in a low-skilled, low-productivity and low-paid rut. Faced with another bout of austerity, workers lose faith in the ability of capitalism to improve their lives, and alternative economic models gather interest. Cooperatives and mutuals emerge in large numbers to serve people’s core economic needs in food, energy and banking. While some workers struggle on poverty wages, others discover ways to live more self-sufficiently, including by moving away from urban areas.

The Empathy Economy envisages a future of responsible stewardship...

Technology advances at a clip, but so too does public awareness of its dangers. Tech companies self-regulate to stem concerns and work hand in hand with external stakeholders to create new products that work on everyone’s terms. Automation takes places at a modest scale but is carefully managed in partnership with workers and unions. Disposable income flows into ‘empathy sectors’ like education, care and entertainment. This trend is broadly welcomed but brings with it a new challenge of emotional labour, where the need to be continuously expressive and available takes its toll.

But how can these scenarios be used to prepare us for the actual future that awaits?

In this article we look at the different interventions that could shield workers from the worst effects of each scenario, without diminishing the opportunities they present. Preparing for the Big Tech Economy, for example, could mean strengthening our competition policy to rein in the power of large companies, as well as scrutinising mergers and acquisitions more closely. Protecting workers from the Precision Economy, meanwhile, could require tighter controls on data collection and more rights for workers that use gig platforms.

If we continue to ignore the possibility of alternative futures, and talk only of mass automation versus business as usual, we risk putting the livelihoods of workers in jeopardy.

While many interventions will be relevant for each scenario, the urgency of applying them will vary. Giving workers a greater stake in assets will be helpful regardless of how the future plays out, but it will be essential if we find ourselves travelling down the route of the Big Tech Economy, where jobs are few and far between and people need other sources of income to get by. Below we highlight the most urgent questions and interventions for each scenario.

If we continue to ignore the possibility of alternative futures, and talk only of mass automation versus business as usual, we risk putting the livelihoods of workers in jeopardy. Rising inequality, growing suppression in the workplace, stagnant wages, heightened discrimination and bias, and deepening geographic division could all come to pass if we do not become more responsible custodians of technology.

Experience tells us we cannot be complacent. Globalisation, another major force to rock our labour market, was badly managed from the 1980s onwards. Just as today, we were told that a tremendous force was coming, that its effects were inevitable, and that it would leave us all better off in the long run. Yet the reality was something else. Deindustrialisation wreaked havoc in manufacturing heartlands and whole communities were left behind, with the scars still on show today. Against this backdrop, it is little wonder people have limited faith that technological change will serve them well. A 2018 RSA/Populus survey found that just 6 percent of workers felt that as a group they would gain the most from the introduction of new technologies in the workplace (PDF).

Yet we do have the power to steward technology in a more benevolent direction. Those who reject that technology can be anything but a force for destruction overlook the experience of our European neighbours. Germany is one of the most automated countries in the world, with industrial robot sales reaching 21,400 in 2017 compared to 2,300 in the UK (PDF). But thanks to an impressive vocational education system and formidable industrial relations, it has managed to keep unemployment under 4 percent while maintaining strong real wage growth. A similar situation exists in Sweden, where powerful Job Security Councils retrain workers who are at risk of losing their job to machines. A survey undertaken by the EU Commission found that 80 percent of Swedes take a positive view of AI and robotics, compared with just 60 percent of UK citizens.

We also consider what it would take for the UK to become a country more confident in its use of technology, with a range of interventions at its disposal to preempt technological change and secure good work, come what may. In doing so, we look at the potential for policy and practice changes across the technological lifecycle, from the point where technology is created to the time it is deployed in a work setting. Our recommendations can be grouped into six broad categories, or ‘conditions’, each of which we explore in turn:

• Richer debates: How can we have a higher quality of conversation about what technology is capable of and what it could mean for workers?
• Ethical technology: How can we steward the creation of new technologies so that problems are nipped in the bud in the developing stages?
• Robust lifelong learning: How can we upskill the workforce on an ongoing basis, enabling them to evolve as their jobs evolve?
• A 21st century safety net: How can we renew our tax and welfare institutions so that the spoils of technological change are shared as widely as possible?
• Strong worker voice: How can we give workers greater say over how technology is deployed in their workplace and the wider economy?
• Agile regulation: How can regulation and regulators keep pace with a changing labour market and technological developments?

Download the full report: Four Futures of Work

Find out more about the RSA Future Work Centre

Pressing questions and priority interventions for each scenario

Big Tech Economy

Questions to address

• How can the power of tech giants be contained?
• How can we prevent unemployment from soaring?
• Can and should certain technologies be outlawed?
• How should we manage future mergers and acquisitions?

Priority interventions

• Introduce a comprehensive technology sentry system.
• Give every worker a ‘technological inheritance’ through a UK sovereign wealth fund.
• Update competition law to reflect the needs of workers as well as consumers.

Precision Economy

Questions to address

• How can the contingent workforce (including the self-employed) be protected?
• How do we ensure worker monitoring is proportionate?
• How can we improve the collection, storage and use of worker data?
• How can worker rating systems be fair and transparent?

Priority interventions

• Pilot Personal Learning Accounts (available to all workers).
• Establish a new welfare settlement for the self-employed.
• Clarify employment status law and strengthen the enforcement of worker rights.
• Introduce a new right to data portability (critical for platform work).

Exodus Economy

Questions to address

• How can the pace of technology development and adoption be accelerated?
• How can the migration of workers in search of jobs be facilitated?
• How can we promote alternative economic institutions and new union models?
• How can the unemployed and underemployed be supported?

Priority interventions

• Address the flaws of Universal Credit and scale trials of Universal Basic Income.
• Amend legislation to make it easier to join a union (eg digital ballots).
• Promote alt union models built on ‘new power’ principles.

Empathy Economy

Questions to address

• How do we promote self-regulation among tech giants and firms using their technology?
• How can the growth of empathy sectors be facilitated?
• How do we prevent jobs in the empathy sectors from being commoditised?
• How can the emotional demands of labour be contained?

Priority interventions

• Modernise recruitment practices in the tech sector.
• Introduce a Charter for Ethical Technology Investments.
• Establish a prize challenge for technology vetting tools.
• Establish a union dedicated to tech workers.

Richer debates

To make the right calls, decision makers need accurate information on what technology is capable of and how fast it is progressing. Yet today’s media and thinktank coverage lacks depth and accuracy, being driven more by a desire to attract clicks than inform readers. A University of Oxford study looking at media articles on AI found that 60 percent of stories were focused on new industry products, while 12 percent referenced the technology entrepreneur, Elon Musk. Just 16 percent of articles cited academic research. Without a richer public debate underpinned by robust research and high-quality journalism, the danger is that scarce resources will be misdirected to solving problems that are not pressing, while mounting challenges elsewhere are overlooked. We can already see that automation receives undue attention by policymakers, at the expense of other concerns such as bias in recruitment and scheduling algorithms. To promote more accurate intelligence, we propose:

• Establish a Centre for Data Journalism: Journalists hold significant sway over what the public and decision makers think about technology. However, cutbacks to specialist reporting mean that tech journalists are more stretched than ever. A new Centre for Data Journalism would offer free training to tech journalists, keeping them abreast of new innovations and upskilling them in investigative methods such as black box testing of algorithms. The Centre could offer bursaries to ex tech workers considering a career move into journalism, as well as coordinate an annual award for the best writing on different topics, including the future of work the Centre would be a new independent body, though working closely with the BBC, as well as other relevant bodies such as the Alan Turing Institute, techUK and media platforms.
• Launch a Future of Work Research Alliance between thinktanks and academics: It is little use having diligent journalists if they themselves have limited access to high quality research. Several academic institutions and think tanks are exploring the impact of technology on the UK labour market, including the RSA’s Future Work Centre. However, collaboration is rare, leading to a disjointed research field where studies are often duplicated. The ESRC should launch a Future of Work Research Alliance, which would: align the work programmes of universities and thinktanks, share baseline data (eg raw survey data from thinktank polling), promote common definitions and taxonomies, support the creation of core research tools (eg a UK version of O*Net to map the skills required for different occupations), and provide a forum for researchers to meet with journalists.
• Upgrade measurements to track good work — The government, in its response to Matthew Taylor’s Review of Modern Employment, recently accepted responsibility for improving the quality of work. However, insufficient measurements exist for understanding whether this is being achieved. As a result, the media tends to report only on levels of unemployment and wages, and occasionally the size of the contingent workforce. In partnership with Carnegie UK, the RSA has proposed a suite of new measurements that would paint a richer a picture of the modern world of work and help decision-makers channel limited resources to the right places. Among our 18 recommended measurements are satisfaction with pay, relationships with line managers, and employee involvement in decision-making. While the government has muted its interest in these measurements, we would urge them to commit to our proposals without delay.

Ethical technology

Much of the public commentary on managing technological change focuses on how to resolve problems after technology has been deployed. Yet we can also intervene prior to and during the formation of technology, possibly even by halting the development of certain innovations. This requires us to distinguish between technologies that expand the capability of workers (eg machines that help healthcare workers to lift and carry patients) and those that merely extract from them without increasing their potential (eg monitoring devices that keep tabs on the movement of warehouse staff). Technology is more likely to be benevolent if the workers creating it are representative of the wider population, which they are currently not. Technology can also be steered in a more ethical direction by investors, who can choose to hold back cash or demand that rigorous tests are undertaken on machines before they are used ‘in the wild’. While new tools have emerged for auditing technologies, more could be done to ensure they are used systematically across our economy. To promote more benevolent technology, we propose:

• Modernise recruitment practices in the tech sector: RSA analysis of government survey data shows that women make up just one in 20 new programmers and software developers. The Royal Society, meanwhile, estimates that BAME groups are underrepresented at senior levels in the ‘digital/IT sector’. Improving diversity within tech firms would bring dividends not just for the public (since a workforce that mirrors society is more likely to create appropriate products for the whole of society), but also for the firm itself (with diversity improving business performance). One way to increase recruitment from marginalised groups is to implement blind testing of applicants and to partner with advocacy organisations like UKBlackTech. On a wider note, tech companies could give preference to applicants who have enrolled on ethical modules during their studies, which are now available at universities including Harvard, MIT and Cornell. A further step would be for tech companies to publicly disclose the make-up of their workforce, including demographic details and places of study.
• Introduce a Charter for Ethical Technology Investments: Investors are increasingly active in shaping the behaviour of tech firms. The head of New York City’s Pension Fund, which controls a $1bn stake in Facebook, called on Mark Zuckerberg to step down because of the company’s mishandling of user privacy. Similarly, Amazon shareholders recently called on the company to stop selling its facial recognition software to law enforcement agencies until the technology is proven safe. A Charter for Ethical Technology Investments would seek to mainstream this behaviour by setting out principles for how digital technology should be created and deployed, for example that rigorous tests are done prior to rollout and that regular audits are undertaken to assess the potential risks of technology on workers. These principles could then be woven into existing Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria, which socially minded investors use to screen potential investments. The PRI (Principles for Responsible Investment) group could take responsibility for orchestrating these reforms.
• Establish a prize challenge for technology vetting tools: We cannot have ethical technology if we do not have the tools to gauge its impact on workers. The good news is that academics, consultancies and tech companies are working on new auditing techniques, particularly for AI. Accenture, for example, has produced a new ‘fairness tool’ to help its customers identify and remove bias in algorithms. Others have focused on making algorithms ‘explainable’, such that it is possible to understand why they arrive at the decisions they do.Yet many of these tools are still nascent and underdeveloped. We recommend a consortium of partners — government, think tanks and tech companies — come together to establish a challenge prize that would spur more innovation in this space, particularly in underserved domains. The emphasis should be on creating tools that are easy to use and readily accessible to businesses of all sizes.

Robust lifelong learning

To the extent that technology eliminates, creates and transforms jobs, workers will need to find a way of reskilling themselves. In some cases, this will mean moving into hi-tech roles that involve creating, maintaining or explaining machines (eg machine learning engineers or cybersecurity professionals). In other cases, workers will be drawn into hi-touch positions, such as in caring and education. Equally, workers may not need to move roles but rather evolve as their current job takes on a different form. Either way, a more robust lifelong learning programme will be necessary to help workers keep pace with changes wrought by technology. Personal Learning Accounts would give every worker, self-employed and employed alike, the funds they need to reskill. Yet we should be under no illusion that everyone will be able to enter a highly skilled profession. Low-skilled work is likely to persist in different forms, and we must therefore help workers to build careers without necessarily rising through the ranks. To promote robust lifelong learning, we propose:

• Pilot Personal Learning Accounts: Research by the Learning and Work Institute found that 40 percent of adults had not participated in learning in the three years prior to 2016. One reason is likely to be a lack of funding, another the inflexibility of training support offered by employers. Personal Learning Accounts (PLAs) present a solution to these challenges. Already in operation in France, Singapore and several US states, PLAs give every worker a modest budget to spend on training courses, typically accredited by the government or trade unions. A UK system could be founded on the existing architecture of the Apprenticeship Levy, drawing on the same funding sources. Unlike the Levy, however, PLAs would put the onus on workers rather than employers to decide on training needs, and would be open to the self-employed as well as employees.
• Professionalise low-skilled jobs through occupational licensing: While many economic pundits comment on the need to re-skill workers, few acknowledge there will only ever be so many high-skilled jobs to go around. The reality is that low-skilled work will always be present, from care work to bar work. We therefore need to think about how we can craft a career around such roles, such that these workers see themselves as being in a profession. One way of doing this is by establishing a framework of digital badges that recognise soft skill development. Another is to introduce occupational licensing, which would require workers to prove their acumen through regular testing. This would bestow more status to jobs (as the taxi licence has done with London’s black cab drivers) and potentially allow workers to charge more for their services. A study looking at the introduction of occupational licenses for security guards and nursery assistants found they have the potential to raise workers’ earning power.

A 21st century safety net

Technological change will have a material impact on the economic security of workers. Those with the skills to complement technology can expect higher wages in the future, while those in direct competition with machines should be prepared for wage stagnation. Some workers may be pushed out of work altogether, leading to financial penury during the period in which they are searching for alternative employment. To protect workers against these risks, we will need to strengthen our safety net and find a way of sharing the spoils of technological change more widely. In the short term, this will mean ironing out the faults of Universal Credit (UC), while in the medium term, we should continue to explore the potential of Universal Basic Income (UBI) through rigorous pilots. A modern safety net should also feature a special settlement for the self-employed (including gig workers), which would see them pay higher rates of National Insurance in return for more protections. To the extent that capital becomes more important as a source of income in our economy, we will also need to give workers a stake in the businesses and technology that are becoming more profitable, potentially through a Sovereign Wealth Fund. To create a 21st century safety net, we propose:

• Scale trials of Universal Basic Income: The UK is in the process of moving from Working Tax Credits to a new UC system of managing welfare payments. While we should continue to push for reforms to UC to ensure it is fit for purpose, we must also explore the potential for UBI as a long term replacement. Unlike UC, UBI creates few disincentives to work, with every citizen receiving the same benefit regardless of how much they earn. Nor does UBI come with a harsh conditionality regime that forces people into work of any kind, regardless of its suitability. The UK government in partnership with local authorities should roll out UBI pilots to test its impact on people’s propensity to work, their wider wellbeing and other activities such as caring and volunteering.
• Establish a new settlement for the self-employed: one in seven UK workers are now self-employed, and this number may grow over the coming years, particularly if gig platforms become more prominent. A 21st century safety net will remain incomplete until it offers sufficient protections to this group. The government should, as far as possible, aim to give the self-employed the same protections as employees, for example full Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay, and a fairer deal under UC. This will require the self-employed to pay a higher level of National Insurance in return. However, this would still leave the self-employed without Statutory Sick Pay, which is currently paid for by employers. To plug this remaining benefit gap, the government should consider a consumer transaction charge, which would levy a modest fee on every transaction between a consumer or business and a self-employed worker, with the funds being used to cover the costs of sick pay. For example, passengers using the services of a self-employed cab driver could be required to pay a 2 percent fee on every journey, totalling 30 pence for a £15 fare. Multiply this figure by 100 fares a week means £30 going into a sick pay fund. This money could either be pooled among all workers or go into individual accounts. Washington State in the US is considering a similar charge under the moniker of ‘portable benefits’, with a legislative bill that is supported by Uber and the SEIU, a major union.
• Rebalance the burden of the UK’s tax system: A modern safety net must be financed through a fair and sustainable tax system. Some have called for a ‘robot tax’ to pay for new policies like UBI. But this is an impractical idea, not least because it is impossible to distinguish between machines that substitute for workers and those that augment them. Still, the underlying principle that capital should bear more of the burden for taxation over labour is a reasonable one. We recommend a consortium of partners — including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, thinktanks like the RSA, and consumer groups like Citizens Advice — commence a review of the UK’s tax system to ensure it is fit for a digital age. One outcome could be to increase taxes on unearned income (eg Capital Gains Tax) to pay for a reduction of taxes on earned income (eg Income Tax). The review should also explore the potential for replacing Business Rates, which struggles to tax e-commerce activity and places an unreasonable burden on physical retail stores, as well as Stamp Duty, which creates a disincentive for people to move to new locations in search of work. The last major review on taxation, the Mirrlees Review, saw few of its significant proposals enacted because it lacked political legitimacy and broad public support. We therefore recommend hosting deliberative events with members of the public to better understand their views on fairness and taxation, whilst building a mandate for the review’s recommendations.
• Give every worker a ‘technological inheritance’ through a UK sovereign wealth fund: If firms automate and digitise more extensively, we can expect a greater share of national income to flow into the hands of those who create and own machines. At some point, it may no longer be enough for people to have a job to get by. They may also need to own assets (eg company shares), which would top up their income through dividends. The Labour Party has suggested creating an Inclusive Ownership Fund, formed by taking 10 percent of the shares from the largest UK companies. However, the dividends would be capped at £500 and made available only to workers employed by the same companies. We recommend the government explore other options for creating a sovereign wealth fund, which could be formed from a windfall tax or by investing in the fastest growing firms, domestic and international. The RSA has outlined one option in the form of a Universal Basic Opportunity Fund (UBOF), which would pay out a £5,000 dividend over two years to every citizen under the age of 55.

Strong worker voice

While the government can offer a broad buffer against economic shocks resulting from technological change, it has limited power to shape firm-level behaviour regarding which technologies are adopted and on what terms. This task must fall to workers themselves, backed by trade unions. Traditional unions, however, have seen membership numbers plummet in recent years. In the 1970s, half of all UK workers carried a union card, but today the figure is just one in five. Changes to legislation could help to reverse this trend, for example by enabling digital balloting as they do in Denmark. But unions must also modernise to stay relevant in an ever-changing labour market. This could mean prioritising technology agreements that create minimum standards for the introduction of new machines in the workplace, or providing services directly to workers, rather than solely lobbying on their behalf. We also call for a union dedicated to supporting UK tech workers, giving them greater say over which technologies are developed and who they are sold to (see the ‘Ethical Technology’ theme above for more context). To strengthen worker voice, we propose:

• Promote a union model built on ‘new power’ principles: The traditional union model is outdated. Few adequately support private sector workers, and even fewer serve the needs of atypical workers like the self-employed. Moreover, many see their primary role as arbiters of disputes, being reactive to events (eg staff layoffs) rather than proactive in anticipating future challenges. We need a new union model to help workers manage the challenges thrown up by technology. Unions should begin by forming technology agreements with employers, as the Communication and Workers Union recently did with Royal Mail, ensuring that surveillance technology would not be used to inform staff appraisals. Unions should also consider partnering with, and potentially funding, smaller outfits promoting worker voice. An example is Community Union’s partnership with the co-working space IndyCube to boost its self-employed member numbers. Unions could even begin offering financial services directly to their members. The National Domestic Workers Alliance in the US, for example, created the Alia app to give domestic workers access to sick pay.
• Amend legislation to make it easier to join a union: Even reformed unions will struggle to attract members if current restrictions on union practice remain in place. Many of the legislative changes enacted from the 1980s onwards were warranted, such as ending closed shop rules that obliged workers to join a union. Yet some restrictions are difficult to justify. One of these is the ban on digital ballots, which means unions must rely on an archaic postal voting system to canvass the views of their members. Given digital voting is already used for elections within many political parties, there is no reason for it to be outlawed among trade unions. The government should review constraints like these and ensure workers have ample opportunity to join a union and have their opinions heard.
• Establish a union dedicated to tech workers: In December 2018, Wired published an article entitled ‘The Year Tech Workers Realised They Were Workers’. It documented several instances where tech workers in the US had lobbied their employers to terminate or postpone controversial contracts. Google employees voiced their discontent with an agreement to sell AI technology to the Pentagon, while Microsoft staff called out the firm’s decision to sell cloud computing services to agencies separating families at the Mexico border. Although these disputes centred on the use of technology in law enforcement and military warfare, there is no reason why tech workers could not be more vocal about limiting harmful uses of technology in the workplace. A union for the UK’s tech workers could, for example, coordinate strategic responses to influence which technology is prioritised by developers and who it is sold to.

Agile regulation

As the world of work changes, so must the regulatory regime that underpins it. While self-regulation should be the default approach to managing the creation and deployment of new technologies, from time to time the government will need to step in with fresh laws and regulations to protect workers. If gig platforms become more prominent in our economy, for example, we will need clearer regulations for determining the employment status and rights of workers, as well as more effective enforcement of those rights. Data protection regulation may also need to be strengthened, including through a new right for workers to transfer their data from one platform to another. In time, we may wish to compel firms to explain the automated decision-making systems they use and how they function, so long as this is technically feasible and does not compromise intellectual property. At a macro level, meanwhile, we may need to revise competition regulation so that regulators are obliged to put the interests of workers on an equal footing with consumers. In every case, regulators should aim to address problems by working hand in hand with employers, tech companies and other stakeholders, a collaborative approach the RSA has called ‘shared regulation’. A modern regulatory system would involve:

• Clarify employment status law and strengthen enforcement of worker rights: Recent months have seen a spate of court rulings on the employment status of workers, implicating firms like Uber, Pimlico Plumbers and Addison Lee. Such legal battles will become increasingly common if the gig economy continues to grow. As argued by the RSA in previous research, the government could minimise disputes and prevent the misclassification of workers by providing a clearer definition of the main types of employment: ‘employee’, ‘worker’, ‘agency worker’, and ‘self-employed’ (see the footnote below for further explanation). However, alongside guidelines, there also needs to be robust enforcement of the rights to which all worker types are entitled (eg the national minimum wage and holiday pay for ‘workers’). According to Jason Lee-Moyer of the Independent Workers of Great Britain, the UK has half as many employment inspectors as advised by the International Labour Organisation. The government must increase resources for the enforcement of labour law and ensure that relevant agencies can issue significant fines for wrongdoing.
• Boost data protection law for workers including through a new right to data portability: The introduction of GDPR last year brought in several new protections for workers, including a right to know when a significant decision that affects them has been automated (eg if their CV were to be screened by an algorithm). However, there is more to be done to ensure workers are treated fairly in an age of big data, including ironing out loopholes. The right of people to know about an automated decision, for example, is currently only valid when the decision is fully automated with no human involvement, a very rare circumstance. Moreover, while there is a new right to move one’s personal data from one platform to another, it seems unlikely that this will extend to third party reviews. As Gavin Kelly argues, this means workers using gig platforms may not be able to transfer their customer ratings, in turn diminishing their ability to seek out better conditions on different platforms. The government must ensure data rights for workers are fit for purpose, including through a new right to data portability.
• Update competition law to reflect the needs of workers as well as consumers: In recent years, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been relatively relaxed about the growing dominance of large firms in our economy. The reason is that they and the politicians to which they answer have prioritised the needs of consumers above all else. Mergers and acquisitions are judged primarily on whether they will lead to lower prices and better products. The potential for job losses and wage freezes is a secondary concern. This approach may have been sensible at a time when workers were adequately represented elsewhere by trade unions, but that time has long since passed. As called for elsewhere by the RSA, including in our Good Gigs report, we recommend the CMA reviews its policies so that outcomes for workers are given reasonable weighting in major decisions. The government may also wish to update the Competition Act so that worker interests are inscribed in law.

Despite all the perils highlighted we should not forget that technology is fundamentally a force for wealth creation. It makes, eases and allows. It is the reason why we no longer do backbreaking work in the fields, why child mortality rates have plummeted, why debilitating diseases are close to being eradicated, why we have more leisure time than ever before, and why most people (in the West at least) are surrounded by an abundance of life enhancing goods and entertainment. In the words of businessman and financier Adair Turner, modern economies like the UK’s enjoy an “embarrassment of technological riches”.

The argument we have made in our report (The Four Futures of Work) is that we can marshal technology for the betterment of workers and wider society, but that this first requires us to acknowledge the multiple uncertainties surrounding its development and adoption. The last 5 years have seen a spate of confident predictions about how technology will shape the future workplace. It seems that every week brings a new automation estimate. But the reality is that no one, not even those in the leading laboratories of the tech giants or the highest echelons of government science and technology teams, know how the future will play out.

2035 feels a long way from today. But there is plenty to gain and little to lose from preparing for tomorrow’s workplace.

Rather than make neat forecasts, we have argued that those in positions of power should consider multiple scenarios of the future and prepare workers for a wide range of possible outcomes. The four scenarios we have presented are not exhaustive in their portrayal of how the world of work may change, but they are intended to be insightful and provocative.

The Big Tech Economy envisages mass automation, the Precision Economy a world of hyper surveillance, the Exodus Economy an economic crash combined with a flight from urban areas, and the Empathy Economy a reformed tech ecosystem where self-regulation becomes the watchword of the day.

No scenario should be viewed as more desirable than another. Each has a silver lining and a dark underbelly, winners as well as losers. The Big Tech Economy, which many will view as the most catastrophic scenario, could result in a radical reduction of the cost of goods like energy, transport, housing and food. The Empathy Economy, meanwhile, which many would view as the most attractive, comes with subtle dangers. Jobs may be plentiful, but they could also be emotionally exhausting. The need to craft a personal brand, to maintain appearances at all times, and to continually respond to other people’s feelings will take its toll.

Those in positions of responsibility — policymakers, educators and employers — must recognise these alternative futures and ready workers for the risks and opportunities they present.

Our recommendations have sought opportunities to intervene early in the technology life-cycle, nipping problems in the bud before they worsen. Establishing a Centre for Data Journalism, a Future of Work Research Alliance and a comprehensive technology sentry system would help to identify what, in fact, we should be devoting our attention to. The reality is that most of these interventions would be worthy of consideration regardless of which scenario prevails. However, the urgency of applying them will vary.

The Precision Economy, which would result in an expansion of gig work and self-employment, would add pressure on the government to equalise tax and benefits between employees and the self-employed. The Exodus Economy, where unemployment and underemployment would shoot upwards, would add weight to calls for Universal Basic Income pilots. And in the Empathy Economy, where jobs growth in strong in sectors like healthcare, hospitality and tourism, new occupational licensing rules would help to improve the status and pay of hi-touch jobs that are typically viewed as low-skilled.

2035 feels a long way from today. But there is plenty to gain and little to lose from preparing for tomorrow’s workplace. Over the coming months, the RSA Future Work Centre will unpack these early ideas in more detail, bringing them together under the banner of a new social contract, which not only sets out concrete policy and practice proposals but establishes the overarching principles on which they should rest.

Download the full report: Four Futures of Work

Find out more about the RSA Future Work Centre