Re: "some people need to apply their skills in a new way or acquire some new skills".
Automation is an overall boon to society and quality of life. Whether in the home (washing machines, dryers), in industries (floor polishing robots, robot welders), services (automatic espresso machines at Drive throughs), and offices (Spellcheck, autofill). Whether people are at home or at work, the automated devices are doing more work for us.
However, the impacts on displaced workers are arguably much harder on people either lower education and more specificalized job skills, and less hard on people with more education and more transferable skills.
Let's take three people who lose their jobs in 2030 due to automation:
*Pat worked in a printshop running a big 2010s-era binding machine (the PNP-200) that requires lots of complex settings via an input panel. His job was eliminated when a new AI-powered automatic printer-binder unit was purchased. He is 55 and has a high school diploma.
*Mary worked in invoice processing for a major bank, inputting information into the bank's custom-made, proprietary database system, the KLX-9000. She became recognized at the bank for her expertise in resolving the quirks and bugs in the database entry process. She is 55 and has a one year community college diploma in administrative services.
*Kalia worked as a lawyer in a big human rights NGO, doing research in the archives to prepare senior partners for cases. In 2030, the firm purchased an AI program was developed that could take over her job. She is 55 and has a BA and a law degree.
All are unemployed in 2030, but Pat and Mary are going to find it hard to apply their skills in new ways, because their skills are tied to specialized obsolete equipment. Pat's intricate knowledge of the big PNP-200 binding machine and Mary's comprehensive knowledge of the KLP-9000's quirks aren't going to help them get new jobs.
Kalia, with her BA, has a general education which will enable her to get a middle class office job. Even if she can't use her law degree in a legal setting, it will still be seen as an asset for jobs in government. Kalia may end up underemployed, but she will still be able to get a job in a big bureaucracy, as her transferable skills (researching and drafting documents) will be valued there.
Pat and Mary have skills, but these are associated with obsolete equipment. Both developed their skills with this equipment over many years of working. After their layoff in 2030, they are unlikely to find a skilled job with a commensurate pay, and it will be unlikely they can ramp up to a similar skill level on a 2030-era system in their remaining few years of their working life.
Questions:
*Should Pat and Mary get assistance for retraining in 2030, to reduce the risk of unemployment?
*Does being underemployed due to automation mean Kalia should get assistance for retraining in 2030?
*If yes, should it be the company laying them off which pays? Or government?
*Given that the diplomas or degrees that unemployed people need might take 2, 3, or 4 years to complete, from a policy perspective, does it make sense to pay for Bob, Mary or Kalia to go to post-secondary education from 55 to 57 and then retire a few years later?
Absolutely agree with you on this, Andy. Thank you for putting it so clearly. The key is to discern which technologies are appropriate for which tasks (not a trivial exercise). And then find ways of supporting workers who will be losing their livelihoods.
Unfortunately our society has a very poor record with respect to this second aspect of replacing human workers with technology. Disruptive technological progress has a long history of resistance ("sabotage", Luddism, etc.) precisely because it strikes at a person's ability to actually earn a living, while (in theory) increasing the profits of the employer/owner. So what can we do to make this inevitable disruption more humane, and make sure the displaced people have a chance to remain productive and engaged?
For me this is one of the major questions of this century. Technological progress seems poised to replace large numbers of workers. EI and Welfare programs are completely inadequate to handle the scale of the disruption. Are we on the way to some sort of Universal Basic Income?
Re: "some people need to apply their skills in a new way or acquire some new skills".
Automation is an overall boon to society and quality of life. Whether in the home (washing machines, dryers), in industries (floor polishing robots, robot welders), services (automatic espresso machines at Drive throughs), and offices (Spellcheck, autofill). Whether people are at home or at work, the automated devices are doing more work for us.
However, the impacts on displaced workers are arguably much harder on people either lower education and more specificalized job skills, and less hard on people with more education and more transferable skills.
Let's take three people who lose their jobs in 2030 due to automation:
*Pat worked in a printshop running a big 2010s-era binding machine (the PNP-200) that requires lots of complex settings via an input panel. His job was eliminated when a new AI-powered automatic printer-binder unit was purchased. He is 55 and has a high school diploma.
*Mary worked in invoice processing for a major bank, inputting information into the bank's custom-made, proprietary database system, the KLX-9000. She became recognized at the bank for her expertise in resolving the quirks and bugs in the database entry process. She is 55 and has a one year community college diploma in administrative services.
*Kalia worked as a lawyer in a big human rights NGO, doing research in the archives to prepare senior partners for cases. In 2030, the firm purchased an AI program was developed that could take over her job. She is 55 and has a BA and a law degree.
All are unemployed in 2030, but Pat and Mary are going to find it hard to apply their skills in new ways, because their skills are tied to specialized obsolete equipment. Pat's intricate knowledge of the big PNP-200 binding machine and Mary's comprehensive knowledge of the KLP-9000's quirks aren't going to help them get new jobs.
Kalia, with her BA, has a general education which will enable her to get a middle class office job. Even if she can't use her law degree in a legal setting, it will still be seen as an asset for jobs in government. Kalia may end up underemployed, but she will still be able to get a job in a big bureaucracy, as her transferable skills (researching and drafting documents) will be valued there.
Pat and Mary have skills, but these are associated with obsolete equipment. Both developed their skills with this equipment over many years of working. After their layoff in 2030, they are unlikely to find a skilled job with a commensurate pay, and it will be unlikely they can ramp up to a similar skill level on a 2030-era system in their remaining few years of their working life.
Questions:
*Should Pat and Mary get assistance for retraining in 2030, to reduce the risk of unemployment?
*Does being underemployed due to automation mean Kalia should get assistance for retraining in 2030?
*If yes, should it be the company laying them off which pays? Or government?
*Given that the diplomas or degrees that unemployed people need might take 2, 3, or 4 years to complete, from a policy perspective, does it make sense to pay for Bob, Mary or Kalia to go to post-secondary education from 55 to 57 and then retire a few years later?
Absolutely agree with you on this, Andy. Thank you for putting it so clearly. The key is to discern which technologies are appropriate for which tasks (not a trivial exercise). And then find ways of supporting workers who will be losing their livelihoods.
Unfortunately our society has a very poor record with respect to this second aspect of replacing human workers with technology. Disruptive technological progress has a long history of resistance ("sabotage", Luddism, etc.) precisely because it strikes at a person's ability to actually earn a living, while (in theory) increasing the profits of the employer/owner. So what can we do to make this inevitable disruption more humane, and make sure the displaced people have a chance to remain productive and engaged?
For me this is one of the major questions of this century. Technological progress seems poised to replace large numbers of workers. EI and Welfare programs are completely inadequate to handle the scale of the disruption. Are we on the way to some sort of Universal Basic Income?