By the year 2025, nearly half of all jobs are expected to be at high risk of being lost to computers due to the rapid growth of technology (CNN). In light of this, should machines be allowed to take jobs from humans? Technology is progressing at a previously unheard of rate, allowing machines to become more advanced than ever before. As machines''' abilities grow, they are able to surpass humans in certain areas. This will eventually raise the issue of what will happen to humans when their jobs are taken over by more capable and cost effective machines, mass unemployment generally coming to mind for those pessimistically inclined. However the the future of machines may not be as bleak as it could seem. One reason why machines should be able to take human jobs is because machines are often more efficient, precise, and cheaper than humans for certain jobs. This in turn could lead to cheaper products, which eventually leads to a healthier economy, and also machines could help create more advancements in technology. Finally, despite claims of dystopian amounts of job loss, technology most likely will create as many jobs as they destroy. Humans should embrace advanced technology and allow it to do the work of people since machines are better suited than humans for certain types of work, machines will help society progress, and there will not be mass unemployment.
First, machines are often more competent and cost-effective than humans for performing certain tasks. One example to show this is machines working in a factory or other repetitive situation, since machines are especially good at doing repetitive tasks and do not experience fatigue, get sick, get pregnant, or get injured, all of which would hinder a human'''s ability to work. A notable real world application of this is the production of automobile. This shows how machines are more efficient than humans for certain tasks. Another example of the benefits of machines in the workforce is the use in applications that require precision, for example, in surgeries. Robotic surgeries require smaller incisions and less blood loss than open surgeries since robotic surgeries allow for greater dexterity, visualization, and precision than normal (UCHealth). This demonstrates how robots can be more precise than humans in certain cases. A third reason why machines should be allowed to take human jobs is because they are generally cheaper. Machines are able to be financially beneficial in several ways, as a quote from Robot.com states, '''They also reduce the amount of wasted material used due to their accuracy. Robots save companies money in the long run with quick ROIs (return on investment), fewer worker injuries (reducing or eliminating worker'''s comp), and with using less materials.''' This would allow for machines to be cheaper in the long run, despite the initial investment. Due to being more efficient, precise, and cheaper, the benefits of machines can have more far reaching effects than some may expect.
Not only are machines quite capable, but their effectiveness can help society progress. One reason to support this is that since machines are able to make products more quickly and for a lower cost, more consumers will be able to buy the goods, allowing for companies to grow and expand with their profits, overall increasing circulation of currency. As stated by David Bergstein of The Huffington Post, '''A human body, be it alive, unhealthy or dead, has the same volume of blood. The difference lies in circulation. We are healthy when our circulation is maximized, and our body begins to fail when our circulation is inhibited. The same is true for economies. All entities''' are healthy to the extent that they have circulation.''' So, incorporating more machines into the workforce allows for a healthier economy. A second way that machines could help society advance is by helping conduct research. For example, computers are able to have doctors access databases to predict trends in diseases and technology has made it more efficient and safer to conduct medical research in labs (MyTechLogy). In addition to this, as technology improves, data analysis will likely become much quicker when aided by machines. Therefore, machines are able to help society progress through research. Despite all these positives, some are still skeptical about whether or not the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Some may argue that machines taking jobs will be extremely harmful due to the surge of unemployment. Since machines could outcompete human workers for jobs, the a question to be asked is how widespread will this be. According to a study conducted by Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne, '''47% of workers in America had jobs at high risk of potential automation''' (The Economist). This could be potentially devastating, however, this is not the first time in history that there was a concern over mass unemployment. During the Industrial Revolution, a group called the Luddites destroyed automated looms that they felt were threatening their jobs as textile workers. However, people found other jobs that were not automated yet and the machines created more jobs in other areas not yet automated, such as for those operating the machines or building them. In general, it has been demonstrated in the past that more advanced technology creates more jobs than it destroys (The Economist). So, based on events in history, it is not likely that those that lose their jobs will not be able to find another source of work. Another concern is that there will be job polarization, where middle-skill jobs decline while the high-skill and low-skill jobs expand. This is due to middle-skill jobs generally being able to be automated whereas low-skill jobs are already cheap and high-skill jobs are harder to replace. Despite this, as mentioned previously, automation typically creates more jobs than it destroys. In addition to this, The Economist states, '''rather than destroying jobs, automation redefines them, and in ways that reduce costs and boost demand.''' This means that jobs that are affected by automation won'''t necessarily be completely destroyed, just modified to accomplish tasks yet to be automated. Overall, the benefits of machines in the workforce generally outweighs the harms.
In conclusion, the benefits of letting machines perform the jobs of humans outweighs the harms since machines are generally more capable and cost effective, can help advance society, and, despite concerns, will likely create more jobs than are taken. Machines are often better at performing repetitive and precise tasks than humans and also are a better investment in the long term. Also, machines can drive down costs of products, which can eventually benefit the economy, and machines can help conduct research to help society progress. Finally, on the contrary to concerns about job loss and polarization, automation will likely not cause copious amounts of unemployment and will create more jobs in areas that have not been automated and redefine jobs that were automated. In the end, machines will definitely have an impact on the future, yet there are still many unknowns about what happens next that can only be enlightened by the progression of time.