Instead of Slowing Down Innovation To Protect Few People, Policymakers Should Focus On Helping Displaced Workers Transition Into New Jobs, ITIF Suggests (itif.org)

A recently published report by Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) argues that rather than slow down change to protect a small number of workers at the expense of the vast majority, policymakers should focus on doing significantly more to help workers transition easily into new jobs and new occupations [PDF]. From a report: There has been growing speculation that a coming wave of innovation -- indeed, a tsunami -- powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, will disrupt labor markets, generate mass unemployment, and shift the few jobs that remain into the insecure "gig economy." Kneejerk "solutions" from such technology Cassandras include ideas like taxing "robots" and implementing universal basic income for everyone, employed or not. The first would slow needed productivity growth, employed or not; the second would reduce worker opportunity.

The truth is these technologies will provide a desperately needed boost to productivity and wages, but that does not mean no one will be hurt. There are always winners and losers in major economic transitions. But rather than slow down change to protect a modest number of workers at the expense of the vast majority, policymakers should focus on doing significantly more to help those who are dislocated transition easily into new jobs and new occupations. Improving policies to help workers navigate what is likely to be a more turbulent labor market is not something that should be done just out of fairness, although it is certainly fair to help workers who are either hurt by change or at risk of being hurt. But absent better labor market transition policies, there is a real risk that public and elite sentiment will turn staunchly against technological change, seeing it as fundamentally destructive and unfair.

Comments

Leave it to the policymakers...

[XxtraLarGe]

Would these be the same policymakers that have been pushing students to go into STEM for the last several years? Or the same policymakers that were telling all the laid off machinists, welders & tool and dye makers to study computer science? I had several of those students in my classes, and they struggled because really had no interest in studying computer science. Most of them hadn't been in school for over a decade. They were there so they could get their "No worker left behind" money. I remember running into one of my former students a couple of weeks after he graduated & asked him how his job search was going. He told me he got hired at a new welding job for $13 an hour. He seemed pretty content.

Transition to what?

[jeff4747]

So, in this postulated future, we have general purpose AI and highly advanced robotics.

What, exactly, do all those humans transition to?

The agricultural revolution greatly reduced the number of people working in the fields. Those people could transition to jobs in manufacturing, and the industrial revolution happened.

Computers become cheap, widespread and widely-integrated into businesses. Many of the displaced workers are able to transition to jobs supporting information technologies in many ways.

General purpose AI and advanced robotics are able to replace everything a human can do. So what jobs do the humans transition to? Build robots? No, that can be done by robots and AI in this scenario, so it's not going to be able to support the displaced humans.

That's the glaring hole in this paper: the assumption that there will be some job for the human to transition to.

Unless they expect us to all be fashion models:

But they appear to significantly overstate this number by including occupations that have little
chance of automation, such as fashion modeling

Btw, this is insanely stupid of a claim. Fashion designers want a particular size and shape of model and for her to walk down a particular stretch of runway at a particular pace and be as non-human as possible - the point is to show off the clothes......golly, that sounds like a fantastic opportunity for robotics.

But that's OK, because rich people will still have money to spend!

The 4th industrialists’ third mistake is that this “nowhere left to run” argument is absurd
on its face because global productivity could increase by a factor of 50 without people
running out of things to buy. Just look at what people with higher incomes spend their
money on: nicer vacations, larger homes, luxury items, more restaurant meals, more
entertainment like concerts and plays, and more personal services

It doesn't seem to occur to them that the poor folks still gotta eat. And if they have no food to eat, they will eat the rich.

Re:Transition to what?

[jeff4747]

I'm going to stop you right there because your assumption is completely and totally incorrect. So-called 'AI' as it currently exists

So....you were unable to actually read the first sentence of the post?

Here, I'll put it in this one. Maybe you'll read it this time: "So, in this postulated future, we have general purpose AI and highly advanced robotics."

AI as it currently exists is not the measure. AI as it exists in this future is.

We have NO IDEA how human brains are self-aware, capable of actual 'thought', capable of having a 'personality', etcetera

How are any of those relevant to doing a job?

I write computer software. A personality is not required to do that, as evidenced by many people I've worked with over the years. Nor is self-awareness.

You don't need a robot you can chat with about Nietzsche for the robot to displace human labor.

but new types always spring up to take their place

In all previous times new technology massively disrupted employment, that new technology was not suitable for some other field. Advances in farming technology could not be applied to manufacturing.

That isn't true with actual general-purpose AI and advanced robotics. They can be applied to everything we currently pay humans to do. Unless you are going to claim we will all get paid to discuss Nietzsche.

Re:Transition to what?

[jeff4747]

Jobs that no matter the AI, people prefer people doing it and will pay for people to do it. Is my first guess

There are not enough people who can afford the premium over AI/Robotics.

10,000 personal assistant jobs can not make up for losing 10,000,000 other jobs. To make that work economically, the humans would have to be paid so much more than the AI/Robotics that the wealthy would choose more of the latter.

Even existing industry can be revolutionized and be top employers for a broad swath of people with varying skills, take Walmart. Not saying it is perfect but they were able to dominate the market though process, service, and reworking distribution. Amazon is another example one of the largest employers is spearheading AI development and automation.

You do realize the two examples you give of revolutionizing existing industry did that by greatly reducing the number of human employees required to do those jobs, right? Not exactly a good argument for those kinds of revolutions being able to absorb displaced human labor....

When has automation or industrialization ever led to wide spread poverty through any kind of increased productivity?

Actually, every single economic revolution.

The agricultural revolution was actually really bad for the displaced farm hands. It's not like they could immediately jump to factory jobs, since the factories did not exist yet. The large pool of idle poor were required as the "fuel" for the industrial revolution to start, which was rather unpleasant for those waiting in that pool.

It would be the Reign of Terror all over again because someone is better off.

That's kind of the point of having this discussion now.

For all of human history, "work" has equaled food and survival. From hunting and gathering to pulling ethernet cables. That's going to break down in the medium-term future because there is not going to be enough work for all the humans.

So, we either talk about it and figure out a way through the largest economic transition our species has ever had, or we ignore it. If we ignore it, the violence will be very bad.

Re:Implying implications

[Iamthecheese]

A lot of people really do lack the intelligence, memory, mental agility, and so forth that are needed to learn, compete for, and perform the new generation of jobs. As manual labor is phased out these people are being left to collect welfare and die of malnutrition-related diseases.

Weird definition of 'oppurtunity'

[king neckbeard]

The first would slow needed productivity growth, employed or not; [UBI] would reduce worker opportunity.

I think there are few opportunities for workers more valuable than the ability to freely tell employers to go fuck themselves, which a UBI would enable. Plus, if an employee can spend years looking for jobs, they can be much more selective.

The real downside to a UBI is that it reduces the power of employers, including the ones that fund the ITIF.

Productivity not boosting wages

[swb]

Productivity has grown substantially since the 1970s but wages have remained stagnant.

I just don't believe anyone who tells me that MORE productivity growth is somehow a predictor for wage growth. Perhaps there is some mythical level of productivity growth that overwhelm's capital's ability to capture it all, but I kind of doubt it.

Re: Implying implications

[javaman235]

This idea that artificial *intelligence* isn't a threat to people who's market offering is based on their *intelligence* just isn't true. My bet is some of the lowest paid more miserable jobs like nursing home caregiver will be some of the hardest to replace with bots, while information processing jobs will be much easier.