The Future of Work Might Not Be So Bleak (bloomberg.com)

From a report, shared by readers: That said, technology can also favor standard salaried employment. The economists George Baker and Thomas Hubbard, for example, have noted how onboard computers could change U.S. trucking. By monitoring behavior, they would solve a moral hazard problem: Drivers have little incentive to be as careful with company trucks as they would with their own. As a result, more drivers could become employees of companies that buy and maintain fleets, rather than going it alone. They wouldn't have to invest in their own vehicles, which makes them vulnerable to recessions by putting their savings in the same sector as their labor; and they wouldn't be out of pocket and out of work when their trucks broke down. More generally, conventional jobs have a lot of advantages. First, a single worker or group of workers might lack the capital needed to set up a business, or prefer to avoid the stress and risk of running one (consider doctors or dentists who choose to be employees of a medical clinic). Second, business owners might not want their employees to have other bosses -- particularly if the work involves confidential information or team projects that require undivided time and attention. Third, reputations based on ratings might not be reliable: The economist Diane Coyle has shown that the quality of individual consultants can be hard to monitor, at least immediately, whereas a traditional consultancy may be more efficient at "guaranteeing" quality. In short, I believe that salaried employment will not disappear, although it might become less prevalent over time.

Comments

The tax system is biased

[rsilvergun]

towards elite rent seekers. Owners, not workers. Those folks don't risk anything. Their loans are guaranteed, they've got insider information given verbally at country clubs, laws don't apply to them and if all else fails we've given them so much wealth that if they go down they take everything with them.

STEM isn't going to get you out/up given the amount of outsourcing going on. Only the very brightest can overcome that barrier and not everybody can be a genius, if they could the definition of genius would change.

If you're referencing that Chinese insult about living in interesting times though you're spot on. Between automation, general attacks on education in the form of funding cuts and our endless wars the working class is boned.

Re: The tax system is biased

[xtal]

As someone who's been an entrepreneur his whole life, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Operating your own business is the best way to have control over your life, and it represents the bulk of the economy. Small business.

Those rules benefit the uber rich, but they also benefit the guy down the street with the delivery truck business.

Re: The tax system is biased

[Immerman]

You seem to be agreeing. That TINY minority basically controls the government, along with the majority of the nation's wealth.

Small businesses are competition without the resources to buy competing congressmen, so they get steamrolled. Similarly consumer and worker's rights advocates are threats to corporate bottom lines and thus get ignored or attacked based on the current strategy (Corporations being the tools the ultra-wealthy use to shield themselves from liability for their actions. Normal people's investments are irrelevant to the corporate agenda - the 99% collectively own less than 1% of stocks.)

Re: The tax system is biased

[Immerman]

The bulk of the US economy is in high-end finance. Much of the rest is tied up in multinational corporations. Small businesses are likely responsible for the bulk of *employment*, and even of most local economies, but are barely a blip on the radar of economic activity at the national scale.

It's an easy mistake to make - one of the effects of the extreme wealth inequality is that, unless you're one of the extremely wealthy, you'll rarely see even see the immediate ripples of the flow of real money - it has no direct impact on your life, and you have almost no voice in the rules that govern it.

Make no mistake - those rules are tilted *heavily* toward the ultra-rich. You may think you benefit somewhat, but only because you're not obviously on the "getting screwed" end of the spectrum - which is by design. So long as they can convince you that the tax system benefits you, you'll support it. But ask yourself this - if you're getting a tax benefit, and they're getting an even bigger tax benefit (proportionally), who has the competitive advantage?

Re: The tax system is biased

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people don't see it as being a wage slave. I make good money for instance and I can rely on it coming in on a regular schedule.

As someone that started out as a contractor taking risks wasn't a problem. I would do one job for 30k and then potentially go a few months without anything or only a couple of grand here or there. That stability has value. I don't think you can begrudge people for wanting stability in their income. If they do it right they save money, when they have enough savings they invest part of it and start to diversify their income. It is a tried and true system and many people view the gig economy as an explicit attack on that system. They are right to do as as well. One guy doing gigs from his garage is usually cheaper than a guy that actually knows what he is doing being hired as a W2. Sure, sometimes freelancers really are good, but at that point they aren't usually cheaper. It's the people the undercut everything that are creating the issues for both you and me.

Stupid article

[apoc.famine]

Lots of random postulation in TFA, with little useful substance. Clear that the authors needed to write about something, and this was something. Even if they didn't know anything about the topic, and couldn't be bothered to learn.

It's still not clear, however, which human tasks computers will be able to replace, and what the effects will be.

Oh really? Then what is the point of your guesswork here?

The most difficult tasks for computers involve unforeseen problems that do not match any programmed routine....the example of a driverless car that sees a little ball pass in front of it. This ball poses no danger to the car, which therefore has no reason to slam on the brakes. A human being, on the other hand, will probably foresee that the ball may be followed by a young child, and will therefore have a different reaction. The driverless car will not have enough experience to react appropriately.

Yep. No idea what they're talking about. It's like each driverless car has to learn how to drive on its own, and can't possibly learn from all of the other ones on the road. And there's no possibility that the car would detect the cross-traffic of a child which is large enough to trigger auto-breaking far before a human could notice and react. Even under parked cars, which is technology we currently have. Can I get paid to write about things I have no clue about? How do I sign up for that job?

That's too bad

[phantomfive]

In short, I believe that salaried employment will not disappear, although it might become less prevalent over time.

That's too bad. I was looking forward to the future with a 4 hour work week, and robots doing all the actual work, sitting on the beach being served pina coladas by a robot.

Economists are amoral jackasses

[Anonymous Coward]

And they cannot stop projecting that damn behavior onto everyone and everything.

" Drivers have little incentive to be as careful with company trucks as they would with their own"

This is blatantly false. People have many other incentives than the merely financial. The fact that we recognize when someone has a good work ethic, is a staunch keeper of their word, is very conscientious, all of these traits reveal non-financial motivation. Sure, some of that clearly will translate into personal gain in the form of the likelihood of continued employment, but not everyone has to stop and think "will my job be helped or hurt if I don't take care of my employer's vehicle?"

And yet time and again, economist measure people's behavior, intentions, motives, and goals almost solely in financial terms and then draw ridiculously biased conclusion based upon that faulty reasoning.

Economists are Stupid People

[PopeRatzo]

The economists George Baker and Thomas Hubbard, for example, have noted how onboard computers could change U.S. trucking. By monitoring behavior, they would solve a moral hazard problem: Drivers have little incentive to be as careful with company trucks as they would with their own. As a result, more drivers could become employees of companies that buy and maintain fleets, rather than going it alone.

These two geniuses ignore the fact that "onboard computers" are only an intermediary step towards no drivers at all, which is clearly the goal of the trucking industry.

I can't wait for their next article, which is titled, "Being a Slave is Not So Bad Because You Get Free Room and Board".

WTF - trucking example so wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That little trucking example was incredibly wrong on several points.
1 - the trucks will be autonomous, no drivers, no jobs
2 - what jobs there will be will not be secure. The piece just assumes working for someone else means full time secure work. Not part time, on demand work, which more and more of this type or work is. Needing for drivers for deliveries is generally seasonal. With several seasonal markets, be it packages, equipment or seasonal goods.
3 - owning less equipment means you are more at the whim of the job market and can be exploited for low wages