Do you think a robot could do your job?
Or to go one step further, o you think a robot could do your job
better than you can?
This may seem like a very modern concern,
but human jobs being made obsolete by technology
has actually been a reality since the days of the industrial revolution.
And while the first fully automated processes
certainly heralded the dawn of a new age,
in a lot of ways they really just represented
the latest step in a process that’s existed for millennia:
The quest for improved efficiency.
As long as humans have had things we need to do,
we’ve been looking for faster, easier ways of doing them.
And over the past 250 years, the evolution of technology
has sent that process into overdrive.
So where is it taking us?
Are we on the verge of living in a fully automated society?
According to Martin Fleming, vice president and chief economist at IBM,
the answer... is no.
With a but.
While robots and computers may not be coming for our jobs just yet,
they do seem to be changing them.
In 2017, MIT and IBM’s Watson Lab
analysed 170 million recruitment listings posted between 2010 and 2017,
finding that job descriptions are already changing
in response to the rise of automated processes.
This represents a shift towards what are known as ‘soft skills’,
which computers generally aren’t any good at;
communication, social skills, creativity - anything fundamentally...
human.
So, while once upon a time a job in sales may have included
working out how much to sell an item for, now, there’s an algorithm for that.
A sales job today is more likely to be about
working out the best strategy for selling, or just being able to
talk to customers, human to human.
And other jobs, already centred in soft skills, like hairdressing,
are likely going to be around for a long while yet.
Because although a robot cutting hair
does seem like something straight out of the Jetsons,
it’s a bit tricky to automate.
Despite IBM’s reassurances though, it’s inevitable that
some jobs just won’t be able to adapt.
In 2016, the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers
submitted a report estimating that
83% of jobs in the US paying less than $20 an hour could be automated.
83%!
That’s around 65 million jobs just up in smoke.
And as the potential for automation evolves,
that number is only going to grow.
So while a rise in automation seems increasingly inevitable,
the mass unemployment it could cause doesn’t make it look very sustainable.
But a solution to this problem has already been proposed.
One which, while controversial, has been championed by the likes of
Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson, and even...
Pope Francis?!
That idea is Universal Basic Income, or UBI.
A fixed sum, regardless of all other income, paid to everyone
to help cover basic costs such as food and housing.
The underlying idea has been around since sometime in the 16th century,
but for the most part, it’s remained a fringe concept
without much mainstream interest.
However, with the rise of automation in recent years, UBI has garnered
a lot more attention and support,
with an increasing number of pilot programs being run around the world.
This attention increased even more during the COVID-19 pandemic,
when many countries implemented UBI comparable systems
to financially support workers
during enforced shutdowns of non-essential businesses.
So clearly, this idea is no longer as out-there as it might once have seemed.
Even so, the thought of implementing it on a wider basis has raised some eyebrows.
Some detractors claim that it would be too expensive to implement,
with estimated costs stretching into the trillions.
And many believe that it would remove the incentive to work,
resulting in societal outcomes similar to those caused by joblessness,
such as increases in divorce rates, drug and alcohol problems, and crime.
But while it’s true
that we’re still working out the challenges associated with UBI,
it’s worth noting that the data from pilot schemes so far,
actually shows the opposite, with results including
increases in financial and mental wellbeing, and improved school attendance.
In addition, arguments that it would be too expensive
don’t usually take into consideration the fact that the UBI model involves
a completely rescaled taxation system, designed - in theory at least -
to make it revenue neutral.
Obviously a dramatic overhaul of the redistribution of wealth
is always going to be controversial,
and by any measure,
Universal Basic Income seems like an extreme move.
But the reality is that an increase in automation
- at this point all but inevitable -
will in itself lead to radical societal changes.
So drastic times call for drastic measures,
and UBI - or a system like it -
might just be the tool we need to get the most out of an automated world,
one which is capable of benefiting all of us,
without risking anybody’s well-being or financial security.
And this idea, above all else,
should be central to our vision of the future,
because progress isn't progress
if it means leaving hundreds of millions of people behind.