Economists Worry We Aren't Prepared For the Fallout From Automation (theverge.com)

A new paper from the Center for Global Development says we are spending too much time discussing whether robots can take your job and not enough time discussing what happens next. The Verge reports: The paper's authors, Lukas Schlogl and Andy Sumner, say it's impossible to know exactly how many jobs will be destroyed or disrupted by new technology. But, they add, it's fairly certain there are going to be significant effects -- especially in developing economies, where the labor market is skewed toward work that requires the sort of routine, manual labor that's so susceptible to automation. Think unskilled jobs in factories or agriculture.

One class of solution they call "quasi-Luddite" -- measures that try to stall or reverse the trend of automation. These include taxes on goods made with robots (or taxes on the robots themselves) and regulations that make it difficult to automate existing jobs. They suggest that these measures are challenging to implement in "an open economy," because if automation makes for cheaper goods or services, then customers will naturally look for them elsewhere; i.e. outside the area covered by such regulations. [...] The other class of solution they call "coping strategies," which tend to focus on one of two things: re-skilling workers whose jobs are threatened by automation or providing economic safety nets to those affected (for example, a universal basic income or UBI). They conclude that there's simply not enough work being done researching the political and economic solutions to what could be a growing global crisis. "Questions like profitability, labor regulations, unionization, and corporate-social expectations will be at least as important as technical constraints in determining which jobs get automated," they write.

Comments

What about it?

[rsilvergun]

aside from climate change this is the biggest issue facing the human race this century. We've built a civilization around the notion that if you don't work you don't eat and we're about to run out of work. Productivity gains are already biting into wages. If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation it'd be > $20/hr. Instead it's about half what it was in the 70s inflation adjusted.

I keep hearing they'll be new jobs. But what I see is high paying factory jobs being replaced by low paying service sector jobs. We keep ignoring the fallout from the last few industrial revolutions. Luddite wasn't always a casual insult, it was a movement in response to job loses from new tech. It took 80 years for more new tech to catch up to the job losses from the last industrial revolution. This is fact, look it up.

Finally I get the people who kid themselves and say it's not a problem. What I don't understand is all these folks acknowledge the problem and shrug saying "laissez faire". Seriously, when in your life has the best answer to a complex problem been to ignore it and hope it all works out for the best?

Re:What about it?

[PopeRatzo]

(adjusted for constant dollars)

The "constant dollar" measure is virtually worthless. It's based entirely on the Consumer Price Index, which is a number derived from a "basket" of goods that is adjusted at the will of the government. For example, it doesn't count education costs, or fuel costs, or medical costs. Let's say the price of chicken goes way up. Well, the CPI adjusts by assuming people will just eat pork instead. If something gets too expensive, it just gets taken out of the index entirely.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...

The actual rate of inflation is much closer to 10-12% than the 2.2% the government publishes. If you take that into account, you will find that no, the income per capita has not increased since 1970. In fact, it has declined for most workers, precipitously.

As a side note: even if you accept the government's inflation number, then most workers have lost ground since Trump's tax cut bill was passed in January. According to Trump's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (see pages 7-8)

https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/ec...

Remember that story about how Americans' paychecks were going to go up by $4000 thanks to the tax cuts? It was a lie.

Re:What about it?

[Billly Gates]

Americans LOVE Capitalism and HATE government!

Instead of being so angry and frustrated and voting for Bernie it meant supporting Trump and blaming their problems on Mexicans and China etc.

It will be very hard if not impossible in my country to vote for socialism. We have been brainwashed by 1950s RedScar McCarthyism, Ronald Reagan, Cold War with the USSR, and FoxNews to change. It is ingrained in our thinking to always fear government and view any handout as theft.

So your solution won't work.

Re: What about it?

[Falconnan]

Well, when Obama took office, the economy was contracting at a record post-war pace. Since then, the rate of decline of wages had been reduced a bit. Further, the Democrats only controlled the legislature for two years during the Obama administration. Two years to reverse a 40-year trend seems a bit unreasonable.

Wealth concentration has become a serious concern not because of social justice concerns (though that could be debated as a consideration), but soon as a serious threat to the economic and political stability of the world generally. Since the baby boomer generation gained marginal control of the vote, investment in society has declined to almost nil, while the tools for concentrating wealth have become far more effective. Trading algorithms run faster than any human can process, and the truly powerful can afford to have servers as close as possible to the exchanges for maximum advantage.

The true reality is we are on the verge of a massive economic shift, and it is already in progress. The odds are against any kind of "better" jobs to replace those lost to automation. New career fields will close faster than they can be created and replaced. Given what I do for a living, I can confirm this is already happening, and rapidly. The old notions of capitalism as it exists currently cannot survive without starving out the population.

I may think Trump is the worst president in over 100 years... You may think Obama was horrible... It's irrelevant. Without leaders who can read the writing on the wall, we're all screwed. That shrinking middle class is going to rapidly disappear, and those who are at the fringes of the upper economic class will become destitute as well as their supposedly "skilled" jobs disappear.

You add the specter of looming arms races with the other global posers, and the military need for rapid response will drive AI development in ways that will accelerate this process out of control as it bleeds into the civilian economy.

Save the blame game and ideological spats for debate class. We don't have time for them anymore. We need to start serious discussions about what to do about what's here, and what's coming.

Re:What about it?

[ShanghaiBill]

Really you have to use something like the Big Mac cost to compare income.

For American families:

Cost of a Big Mac in 1978: $0.75.
Median household income in 1978: $10,556.

Cost of a Big Mac in 2017: $4.79
Median household income in 2017: $56,516

Big Macs have gone up by a factor of 6.39.
Median incomes have gone up by a factor of 5.35.

So at least in terms of Big Macs, the median American family has not kept up.

Disclaimer: I am a vegetarian, so I don't really care what Big Macs cost.

Re:What about it?

[PopeRatzo]

So what you're saying is the drop in the Obama Administration wasn't just 5-6%, but it was closer to 20%?

No, the average CPI increase under Obama was less than it has been under Trump. Wage growth was better under Obama. Employment gains, in both the regular unemployment and the U6 measurement which includes total workforce participation, all did better under Obama. There is not a single economic indicator under Trump that does anything but continue the trajectory established by the Obama administration.

Except one: The Dow is down for the year 2018 so far, and it's already July. It was highest before the Trump/GOP tax bill hit and it's now about 2500 points off it's high. There was never a 6 month period under Obama where the DOW decreased that much. Never.

Re:What about it?

[PopeRatzo]

That seems like a reasonable assumption.

Except it's not. When pork goes up, the CPI assumes people will move to beef, and then fish when beef goes up. At some point, people start eating cheaper cuts and then less and less meat.

You don't have to do this just with meat. Consider it with every food category. If coffee goes up, what are you going to start drinking in the morning? (they eventually took coffee out of the CPI).

See, the problem is, this CPI shell game has been going on forever. You begin to run out of substitutes, eventually. At some point, you start eating hamburger helper with no hamburger, but the government can still say, "There's no inflation!" Gas has gone up about a buck a gallon since Trump took office. That 30% doesn't get counted in the CPI.

That's why things like education, health care, fuel and other things for which there is no roughly equivalent substitute, eventually just got taken out of the CPI so the government could continue to tell us that "All's well! Nothing to see here!"

Re:What about it?

[sg_oneill]

Socialism, the real thing, wont happen any time soon, it really need genuine economic distress, the sort you see south of the border before people decide keeping the rich rich and the poor poor is not working out so well for them. Marx pretty much said effective socialism arises out of peoples self interest (And specifically as a class of people poor folks basically deciding theyve had enough and banding together to solve it). As it stands Americans have too much invested in capitalism to want it to go away completely.

However hybridized social-welfare systems are both plausible but also effective. Europe, Australia, Candada, etc all have similar histories of strong investments in capitalism, but have also adopted degrees of welfare to ensure people dont fall completely out of the net with health and basic living standards.

At some point politicians will be forced to realise that either they get a decent welfare and healthcare system in, preferably a universal minimum wage or some income tested variant, or people will start lighting things on fire or pointing guns at politicians.

Re:What about it?

[Billly Gates]

Dude. I am am American.

People here would rather die than to give up their guns, expensive and worthless health premiums and their paychecks than to fund fellow free loaders in their minds even if it's against their own self interests.

We were founded with a great distrust of authority. The south hates any government because it took their rights to own slaves away. Reagan taught Americans to fear any government as evil. McCarthy as well. Australian and Canadians genetically are cousins but it stops there. We are different and not similar at all. The majority hate here think just how I described and view Marxism as the enemy since we were children during the cold war.

Re:What about it?

[dgatwood]

Per the Census, income per capita (adjusted for constant dollars) has increased since 1970s. Minimum wage may be stagnant, but actual wages aren't.

Bzzt. That's not what that means. Thanks for playing. Repeat after me: Averages are useless without standard deviations.

I'll let that sink in for a moment. What you're saying is that the average wage has gone up. What the folks on the other side are saying is that the poorest and most vulnerable people — the ones who are actually making minimum wage are getting seriously screwed. You are both correct. But the purpose of a minimum wage is to protect the poorest and most vulnerable, not to raise the average wage. The latter is merely an unavoidable side effect of the former. So that means the minimum wage is too low.

As far as minimum wage laws go, there shouldn't be one at a Federal, and most likely even at State levels. What minimum wage would you set that would apply in San Francisco or Manhattan that would also be applicable to McAllen, TX? It makes no sense on a Federal level. And in some States (such as CA), it makes no sense state-wide. The cost of living in Oxnard is about 46% of that in Santa Monica, just 45 minutes away. How do you set a minimum wage that is "livable" for someone in a high-income area and doesn't kill small businesses in low-cost areas?

What makes you think that the minimum wage in San Francisco ($14.00) is the same as the minimum wage in McAllen, TX ($7.25)? The federal minimum wage is just that — a minimum. States like California ($11.00) are allowed to set higher minimums. And municipalities are allowed to set even higher minimums than at the state level. What they are not allowed to do is set a lower minimum than is prescribed by a less granular law.

Thus, the federal minimum wage should be based on the average baseline cost of living, ignoring cities with significantly elevated cost of living. It need not be high enough to allow mobility from the poorest area to the richest area, but it does need to be high enough to allow some mobility, within reason.

Similarly, the state's minimum wage should be based on the average cost of living, possibly ignoring outlier cities like San Francisco, and each city's minimum wage should be based on the average cost of living in the city, again possibly ignoring outlier neighborhoods like Pacific Heights.

Ostensibly, a city could even provide minimum wage zones in which the minimum wage was higher or lower than the normal city minimum wage, though that would tend to result in not having employees in the lower-wage zones, so this is probably a bad idea in practice, but nothing legally prevents it.

The solution is to eliminate a minimum wage law at the Federal and State level, and let counties or municipalities set it if they so choose.

Congratulations. You've just solved a problem that doesn't actually exist. States, counties, and municipalities already can set the wage higher if they so choose. And there is no valid reason to allow them to set the minimum wage lower than some reasonable median poverty line for the state, because doing would eliminate any possibility of mobility for people in the poorest areas.

Income per capita is meaningless

[rsilvergun]

and it's a stat cherry picked to hide income inequality. It's _average_ income. Take everybody, take all the money, divide. This is why everybody looks at inflation adjusted wages.

Buddy of mine just got a call center job paying $8/hr. He had a job in the 90s doing about the same thing that paid $12. You could buy an economy car in the 90s for $6k. Same car today is $15. Has a few more features, gets about 3-5 mpg more. costs almost 3x as much. Same for rent. 1 bd when he was making $12? $500/mo. Today? $800. Same complex. Inflation's a bitch.

Better example. Woman "retires" from kmart when the store closed. Making $9/hr. She was making $3 something in the 70s. The problem? Adjusted for inflation she was making the equivalent of $16/hr in the 70s. She lost almost half her pay after 45 years of work.

You know damn well why we don't let municipalities choose. The billionaires find it easy to divide and conquer small municipalities. It takes organization on a national level to stand up to that much economic power. This is precisely why their media machines (Fox News, Sinclair, CNN, MSNBC, they're all economically right wing and they're all supply siders) push these "States Rights" narratives. I don't know if you work for them, the Russians, or if you just fell for their propaganda. But either way wake up. If you're one of their shills they'll turn on you eventually. If you're not then they've already turned on you. I don't know what kind of game you think you're playing, but you'll lose it in the end.

Re:Income per capita is meaningless

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you work for someone else, you're a slave to their whims. I know plenty of guys here in Texas who make tons of coin doing their own thing. My lawn care/painting buddy from El Salvador makes over $100k a year painting two house a week in the Woodlands/Conroe/Spring area. He also employs three full time lawn care guys who cut lawns for the wealthier white guys at 75-100 a lawn, and they do 10-15 lawns a day. The lawn guys are making $60k a year, no nights, no weekends, no on-call BS. I'm half tempted to go into the trades myself because IT is a shell of its former self.

I started off as a Unix admin, moved to Linux, can program, admin about anything, but everything in Houston has been either outsourced or went to the "cloud". All of the wealthiest people I associate with are self-made: plumbers, electricians, and welders. All are $100k men and they all work for themselves. I've come to the conclusion this summer that I might make the break into the trades because they cannot be outsourced or automated. You cannot automate plumbing needs, welding in the specialty my buddy does, or running and installing electrical lines. Hell, my barber buddy made $80k last year in a two man shop. I'm fully convinced that a man is only his own man if he works and generates his own income and calls the shots.

That kind of cyclical economy

[rsilvergun]

means you can never build any wealth. You're always losing what little you have in the next crash. Meanwhile the rich buy it off you during the crash for peanuts (using your money in the form of the bailouts they got). Crap like that is why I'm a Keynesian style Democratic Socialist.

Re:Not really

[swillden]

In truth, Economists know that automation and the associated productivity will make life much better, just like it always has.

Your argument is a strawman which misses the point. Obviously economists understand that massive automation will create equally massive gains in productivity, causing prices to plummet and goods to be abundant. This isn't the topic of the debate. The topic is what to do about the fact that our current model for distributing goods and services is based on the notion that labor is scarce and that people must be motivated to work. Automation makes labor abundant and may ultimately remove the opportunity for many people to work, and under the present system, if they don't work, they don't get to eat (or, more accurately, they're forced to grovel to a massive, sneering bureaucracy for the opportunity to eat, barely).

This means that continuing our current approach looks like it will create a rather dystopian future, which means that we really should be thinking hard about alternatives. The paper argues that we're not putting enough effort into the latter.