We can't let robots steal all our jobs
CHICAGO -- In a world that seems in constant danger of going over the edge, why isn't more effort going into making sure robots don't steal every last job and leave our kids fighting, cage-match style, for whatever's left?
Jobs are a key measure of how well the economy is ticking along, but they have become a partisan battleground.
The elites of Silicon Valley, sensing a backlash against a system in which no-wage robots toil 24 hours a day without complaint, have suggested a universal income to provide those displaced by technology with a small, guaranteed stipend for basics like food, housing and health care.
Though initial research suggests that such a universal income wouldn't lead to laziness (and might even increase productivity by leading people to take creative and entrepreneurial risks), it's not an idea that has caught fire.
Douglas Rushkoff, the author of the magnificent book "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus," recently noted that the instinct for some to jump on the bandwagon for a universal income is self-serving: "[Leaders at Silicon Valley tech firms] understand the basic math undermining their long-term business plans: If they automate all the jobs, who will be left to buy their services? Even the data that companies such as Google mine from our otherwise free online activities would be worthless if we had no money to spend. The penniless have no consumer behavior to exploit."
On the other extreme, the Trump administration ignored its own lamentation that mid-skill jobs have left for China when it issued guidance for "state efforts to test incentives that make participation in work or other community engagement a requirement for continued Medicaid eligibility" for able-bodied adults.
If it's 100 percent true, as some research suggests, that employment is beneficial for physical and general mental health, then this would likely make Medicaid recipients less reliant on welfare in the future. It still leaves open the question of where the jobs are going to come from.
However, it's not inevitable that automation will result in mass job loss, despite the scary statistics. (And they are scary: According to a recent report by Bloomberg and the think tank New America, nearly one-quarter of the workforce is projected to be 55 or older by 2024, and we're smack dab in the middle of a decades-long fall in the rates at which Americans start businesses, switch jobs or move for a new job.)
Those who look on the sunny side of automation love to cite the economist David Autor's observation that the introduction of the ATM increased, rather than decreased, the number of bank teller jobs that require more creativity and problem-solving than just counting money and making deposits.
The real problem underlying this tension is that it's not anyone's priority to figure out how U.S. corporations, societies and governments can work together to ensure the future holds meaningful jobs.