Andrew McAfee, coauthor of Race Against the Machine did very interesting TED talk recently on the subject of his book, overlapping heavily with the subject of this blog. The first half of the talk does an excellent job of stating the problem. He demonstrates how businesses are profiting more than ever today, investing in technology more than ever -- but are not hiring. He also talks about how various technologies are starting to catch up and even eclipse humans in cognitive tasks such as translation and writing grammatically-perfect articles, and that 'we ain't seen nothing yet'.
Oddly, while demonstrating that 'droids are coming for your jobs' he also claims that current debate on 'whether these technologies are affecting people's ability to make a living' is 'missing the point entirely'.
For the millions of people people losing their houses to foreclosure, shuffling in the dole queues and soup kitchens, collecting paltry benefits, wallowing in depression and freezing in alleys and tent cities I would say the concern about losing income is exactly on point and in need of urgent focus. Is he saying that we ought to just wait out the storms in a 'laissez-faire' kind of manner and that the problems will spontaneously sort themselves out?
Unfortunately, I think so. He doesn't offer anything in the way of suggested actions and decisions we could be making. Instead, his talk pivots half-way through onto an optimistic feel-good frame which I think has shaky foundations. He points to one good aspect of technology at the bottom of the pyramid -- citing a study of poor rural fishing villages leveraging the power of cell phones to improve their knowledge of the market situation and reduce waste.
Yes, we know that human productivity rises when technology is introduced, and it's initially a huge benefit to independent workers. But what happens when poor fishermen with creaky boats come into competition with hyper-efficient automated fishing operations? On land, where robots have a surer footing, we can see how small, poor farmers suffer in competition with gigantic, scaled and highly automated agribusiness.
A time when hands are not needed to steer the ship and haul the fishing nets can't be too far away, as these are pretty routine tasks, and there's plenty of research going into ship automation. With no income stream to leverage, information carrier technology becomes increasingly useless, not to mention unaffordable (in the current consumer paradigm).
I'm too am hopeful that technology will benefit the neediest in the world. We know of it's potential, but we can't afford to think that technology will steer itself to that end without heavy political upheaval going on of some kind or another. That's the missing step in the transition that too few people (and almost no prominent futurists and economists) are willing to talk about -- including myself, for now.
Showing posts with label writer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writer. Show all posts
Monday, 30 July 2012
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
The Messenger: Martin Ford
I doubt that the threat of job displacement
by automation is far from the minds of millions of workers globally. But if you were to base
your opinion solely on what the majority of economists, captains of technology,
and futurists are saying you would probably miss the story completely.
Technological unemployment does not loom large on the mainstream radar, just
as wealth inequality was a non-issue until popular unrest exploded onto
the streets in recent years.
One exception to the prevailing myopia is Martin Ford
whose timely book Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future
is probably the best extended analysis on the issue to come out this decade.
Ford has clearly taken pains to make his book accessible to the public in an effort to raise consciousness on the issue. Without oversimplifying the issues, the book is written with enough clarity that even those unfamiliar with economic and technological trends are sure to find this an absorbing read.
Since his tightly-written arguments are difficult to summarize without loss, I'd rather his work speak for itself. Here are a few
key snippets (slightly out of order) from Lights
in the Tunnel which lay out the core of the problem. He has a lot more to say, so do read the whole thing if you get a chance.
On The Growing Reach of Automation
‘The continuing
advance of computer technology along a geometrically increasing path and the
diminishing returns from investment in education seem to make a very strong
case that the average worker—and perhaps many above-average workers—are in
clear danger of having their jobs automated’. (p 54)
‘The conventional
wisdom as generally presented by economists and other analysts is that technology
creates jobs. While history has shown that this is indeed true, it also shows quite
clearly that the new job types created by technology are very often themselves
quickly vaporized by the same phenomenon. The IT jobs that are now being
offshored and automated are brand new jobs that were largely created in the
tech boom of the 1990s’. (p 57)
‘The fact is that the
vast majority of our workers continue to be employed in traditional jobs. The
new job types created by technology represent a relatively small fraction of
employment and […] often tend not to last very long. (p 61)
‘The specter of near
fully automated supermarkets and chain retail stores is cause for genuine
concern. These are now the jobs of last resort. These are the jobs that workers
displaced from other industries take because there is nothing better available’.
(p 79)
‘For knowledge
workers, there is really a double dose of bad news. Not only are their jobs
potentially easier to automate than other job types because no investment in
mechanical equipment is required; but also, the financial incentive for getting
rid of the job is significantly higher’ [because of the larger salaries]. (p
73)
On the Decline of Consumption and it’s Consequences
‘As a growing percentage of the population
is exposed to direct evidence of ongoing job losses, many people will begin to
experience a greatly heightened level of stress and worry. Facing this,
individuals will take the obvious action: they will cut back on consumption,
perhaps quite dramatically, and try to save more in anticipation of a very
uncertain future’. (p 109)
‘In essence, we have succeeded in
globalizing labor and capital, but we have really not globalized consumption. To a large
extent, workers in low wage countries are not capable of purchasing the goods
they are producing’. (p 113)
There is no incentive
to produce products if there are no consumers with sufficient discretionary
income to purchase those products. This is true even if intelligent machines
someday become super-efficient producers. […] If we consider the singularity in
this context, then is it really something that will necessarily push us forward
exponentially? Or could it in actuality lead to rapid economic decline? (p112)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)