Automation is about to cause a YUGE employment crisis
Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be eliminated by artificial intelligence
As the pandemic winds down, we can turn our attention to the next crisis. One such brewing problem that may have been hastened by the pandemic and the growth of contactless and automated businesses is the looming unemployment crisis that will come from the bill expansion of artificial intelligence in the economy.
Last week I happened to catch a CBS News segment that discussed automation of the trucking industry. The technology is very nearly there to replace human-driven trucks with robotic vehicles. This would lead to the elimination of 300,000 jobs in short order. And that’s just one industry.
We’ve seen some of this in the past. Many American manufacturing jobs were eliminated, not because they were shipped overseas, but because they were made obsolete by machines. There is a long list of jobs that have already seen artificial intelligence cut large swaths from their numbers. These include assembly line workers, telephone operators, travel agents, and stockbrokers.
There are many other jobs that could be eliminated in the next wave of automation. In addition to truck drivers, these could include bus and taxi drivers, cashiers, cooks, bank tellers, and warehouse workers. If Amazon can use use drones for deliveries then warehouses can certainly be automated.
In aviation, combat and cargo pilots are likely to be replaced more quickly than those who carry passengers. Combat drones like the Predator have been in extensive use for the past two decades. Many of these drones still require human operators at this point. I once had an Uber driver in Las Vegas who was a full-time Air Force pilot who elected to do a tour flying drones instead of manned aircraft.
Automation was always coming, but the pandemic has accelerated the process. The need to limit human contact to slow the spread of the virus, as well as the people’s desire to avoid crowded stores, have spurred growth in the adoption of contactless business technology. Needless to say, the push for higher minimum wages for unskilled labor is also pushing many companies toward more automation. Many of the jobs lost in the pandemic may never come back.
The societal upheaval that will come as hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their jobs will be both economic and political. It is difficult to imagine the angst of such a large number of people losing their jobs and having no prospects for new ones. How these people and their families will make a living is an open question. Such a large number of desperate people could form a large populist faction that could change the face of American politics.
The big question is how to handle the legions of people who will lose their jobs to artificial intelligence. In a past wave of automation, a wag said that if his job was replaced by robots, he would get a job making robots. For many people, that won’t be an option.
Many of the workers being replaced will have limited educations and technical skills, which would make it difficult to place them into new jobs. Additionally, we are at a point where robots can make the robots that take human jobs.
One obvious thing that policymakers can do is help to retrain workers who lose their jobs to technology. But that won’t work for everyone. For example, older workers may have trouble adapting to the new technologies required for new jobs.
And it remains to be seen whether enough new jobs can be created to absorb the unemployed in a world where machines are doing more and more work formerly done by humans. There may simply not be enough jobs to go around.
One possible answer is the creation of a Universal Basic Income. Andrew Yang popularized the idea of UBI in his 2020 presidential run and has revived the plan in his mayoral campaign in New York this year. Yang’s plan would have the government pay each citizen a monthly salary of $1,000 regardless of income or employment status. The concept is similar to that of COVID relief payments except that UBI payments would be made on a regular basis.
UBI has already been tried in several places, usually in relatively small-scale experiments with mixed results. In one relevant example, Spain implemented a monthly stipend of 1,015 euros ($1,145) for about 850,000 poor families during the Coronavirus pandemic. The idea of UBI is a controversial one, especially on the right, but some conservatives have argued that the concept would be a simple way to reform the means-tested welfare system.
Another possibility would entail regulatory capture in which the people losing their jobs lobbied the government to enact regulations to stifle the new technology. An example of such a law would be New Jersey’s 1949 law that prohibits drivers from pumping their own gas. New Jersey’s law is still in force and if you gas up in the Garden State, an attendant will fill your tank even if the gas pump is a new automated self-serve model.
The regulatory possibilities for angry and frustrated Americans facing the end of their careers is practically endless. Regulations could require drivers on board autonomous vehicles, humans could be required to monitor robot kitchens, and humans might be required to monitor and approve automatic financial transactions.
If you don’t like these suggestions and possibilities, you’re not alone. If you’re expecting me to have an answer to the situation, I don’t and I’m not sure anyone else does either. The best I can tell you is that if you are in a job that could easily be automated, I’d start looking into education and training for a new career now unless you are already very close to retirement.
If you have ideas about how to handle the coming employment apocalypse, we’d be glad to hear your suggestions.
As I write this, news is still sparse about the shooting at the King Sooper’s in Boudler, Colorado. I’m not going to engage in speculation, but I do want to point out that these tragic incidents seem to occur almost randomly with respect to geography. An Everytown for Gun Safety map of mass shootings over the past ten years shows incidents all over the country including strict gun control states such as California, New York, and Illinois. Further, only two of the top 10 deadliest shootings in the world were in the US. What’s more, Colorado passed strict new gun laws in 2013 after the massacre at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012.
Gun control is not going to be the answer to the problem of mass shootings. That’s particularly true in a country so awash with guns that even if we stopped manufacturing and selling guns today, they would still be plentiful for decades. Gun confiscation is as much a pipe dream as deporting all illegal aliens.
Add to that the fact that many gun control proposals would not have stopped previous shootings. If gun control proposals wouldn’t have impacted the attack, they should be nonstarters.
At this point, we don’t have details on the shooter, his motive, or how he got his gun(s). The killings were a tragedy and we need to look for solutions, but we need to look beyond the typical register-and-ban policies that haven’t worked in the past to find something that is effective at keeping guns out of the hands of murderers while preserving the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
If you haven’t subscribed to the Racket yet, click the button below to do so while it’s still free. And remember, with the Racket you get MORE than what you pay for!
You can also find us on Twitter and Facebook. Join the discussion online with our Racketeers Facebook group.
The Racketeers are Jay, Steve, and David. Click each name to contact us on Twitter!
As always, we appreciate shares. If you see something here that you like, please send it to your friends and tell them that all the cool kids read the Racket!
A couple of reading suggestions:
1. Martin Ford covers the automation issue in great depth in his book "The Lights in the Tunnel":
https://singularityhub.com/2009/12/15/martin-ford-asks-will-automation-lead-to-economic-collapse/
The main idea is an "automation tax" where the State captures more of the proceeds from profits gained through automation, and uses that to subsidize the labor pool that isn't benefiting directly from automation:
"Ford doesn’t leave his readers with just another doomsday scenario, he does his best to find a solution. No, he doesn’t think we should (or perhaps even can) avoid automation. Instead, TLITT explores some pretty radical ways that we could put purchasing power back in the hands of the masses and create non-traditional jobs with economic incentives. He speaks of ‘recapturing wages’ by imposing capital/labor taxes on industries as they automate, and value added taxes to goods as they become cheaper. These taxes should not be large enough to discourage automation, but they could (Ford proposes) provide revenue for a new kind of job."
"Ford’s ‘virtual jobs’ are incentivised programs that would reward people for pursuits such as education, civic service, journalism, and environmental responsibility. These jobs would be paid for by the state through the revenue gained through recaptured wages. Those who accomplished more in their virtual jobs would receive higher wages, thus providing the financial incentive that everyone needs to feel like they are really working. There would be some industries and some workers that exist outside of this new system, and plenty of space and encouragement (Ford says) for entrepreneurs, who would still have the most potential for monetary gain."
2. If you're of the sort that is looking to leverage automation in your own enterprise, Tyler Cowen's "Average is Over" looks at the emerging economy and discusses strategies for making the most of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Is_Over
Cowen posits a world of two types of workers - the leaders who continue learning to keep up with changes in their industries and marketplaces, and the followers who fit in where they can (or not at all). Automation and augmented intelligence is a big part of Cowen's story, and he draws heavily upon chess "cyborgs" as a metaphor:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-humans-still-good-for-the-turning-point-in-freestyle-chess-may-be-approaching.html
"Some of you will know that Average is Over contains an extensive discussion of “freestyle chess,” where humans can use any and all tools available — most of all computers and computer programs — to play the best chess game possible. The book also notes that “man plus computer” is a stronger player than “computer alone,” at least provided the human knows what he is doing."
More on this phenomenon:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151201-the-cyborg-chess-players-that-cant-be-beaten
"And that's exactly what happened to two amateurs in 2005. Steven Cramton and Zackary Stephen were chess buddies who met at a local club in New Hampshire in the US. They had spent a few years honing their skills at the game and Stephen, in particular, was keen on chess programming."
"They entered a 'freestyle' tournament that year which attracted several teams of grandmasters aided by computers. The tournament was played remotely, online, via the servers of Playchess.com."
"Both Cramton and Stephen were amateurs, they had day jobs and were effectively unknown in the world of competitive chess. But they had some clever tricks up their sleeve. For one, they had developed a database of personal strategies that showed which of the two players typically had greater success when faced with similar situations."
"'We did have a really extensive database that I worked on for four or five years before that,' remembers Stephen. 'Steve had contributed to it.'"
"They also had three PCs chugging through the numbers and these had been specially prepared by Stephen. But crucially, they knew how to actually play a cyborg game."
"'We had really good methodology for when to use the computer and when to use our human judgement, that elevated our advantage,' Stephen says."
The fundamental lesson that I take away from this is that trying to out-compete automation directly on its own terms is likely a fool's errand by oneself, but bringing yourself up to speed and learning to *leverage* automation as part of one's *own* processes may be a winning formula, if modern chess is any indicator. However, this requires the worker to take their own fate into their own hands, and start learning how to exploit automation on their own, instead of waiting for someone to show them how (which gets back to Tyler's original world of two types of workers).
This is a technique that I've used to great effect in my own software business (declarative systems - writing code that is able to write code, instead of programming everything directly).
3. Note that none of these ideas are new ones. The godfather of this philosophy is the same fellow that gave us the mouse, demo'ed a Skype-like system back in the '60s, and contributed to our own modern computing ecosystem much more than he is credited, Douglas Engelbart:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/douglas-engelbart-invented-future-180967498/
While Engelbart is best known for his "Mother of All Demos" and things like the mouse, he was also chewing on this problem and proposed the "Bootstrapping" strategy:
https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/187/
The idea was that for humans to get past their implicit limitations, they would need to adopt a strategy of co-evolution with their personal technology infrastructures - improving the technology to produce incremental gains in productivity, and then use those gains to improve processes and their technology more, rinse and repeat. Essentially a form of compound interest for personal labor productivity. In 1962, he prepared a report for the Air Force describing this process:
https://www.dougengelbart.org/content/view/138
To execute this strategy successfully, you not only need people willing and able to tinker with their tools and environment to achieve the incremental productivity gains, but you also need tools and an environment that is tinker-able. Engelbart designed tools like the mouse for this purpose, and his vision for good technology stands in stark contrast to the (Steve) Jobsian vision of technology users as mere consumers who are constrained by the more enlightened vision of the technology's designers.
While it's a bit heavy on the social science (especially Science and Technology Studies), Thierry Bardini's "Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution and the Origins of Personal Computing" is an EXCELLENT volume exploring these themes:
http://thecomputerboys.com/?p=540
I don't know if this gives you any answers about what to do about the coming automation economic apocalypse (my strategy is to keep augmenting and iterating my own tools and processes), but I hope that the suggestions above give you some resources to help think about it at a deeper level than "Them damn robots took our jobs!" :-)