Technological Application in the Workforce:
Premonitions of Economic Prosperity or Disparity?
3187320
Word Count: 2052
AP Seminar
Mr. Schuldt
24 March 2017
There is the popular notion tying technology with a malicious thievery of employment across an international scale. The production of machines replacing tedious tasks is dismissed as a crisis that is worth rioting, that mass production has stripped intrapersonal applications and substance to their products, and that the unskilled labor force will soon be condemned to poverty without any hope. While these fears remain very vivid, it might be time to take a look in retrospect at what exactly this increase in technology has caused in the work field and what it most likely will continue to cause. The impact of an international and world-scaled economy is too profound to ignore and as time passes this predicament will only increase in urgency. To even imagine a life without technology at this point in time would be more than difficult. Methods practiced and followed through human eras are becoming obsolete instantly after an industrial revolution that touched the world.
One particular place this impacted most harshly was the once prospering and industrial Youngstown, Ohio. According to The Atlantic’s article “A World Without Work” by senior editor Derek Thompson, tragedy struck when the source of economic prosperity was terminated with up to 50,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in wages lost all in five years (Thompson). This event was greeted with a depression that touched every citizen. While these consequences were severe and unfortunate, they might only be the immediate and temporary effects of unemployment especially in the context of technology replacement. Youngstown represents a single drop in an ocean of change that is likely to arrive, but as experts at the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that although jobs in manufacturing are to decline 3% since 1990, the overall employment will continue to increase by about 16%,” (“BLS”). The influence and future of unemployment hold far more promise and optimism than meets the eye. The jobs that will primarily be automated are those that consist of monotonous, and repetitive tasks which are typically undesirable. Now experiencing a transition period, the American workforce must undergo a rough but still hopeful revolution. This will be possible through an adaptation of job qualification, the resistance and increase of jobs that cannot be automated, and the growth in the production of goods. Although low-wage, unskilled, labor will be sacrificed on a short-term scale, economic prosperity will stabilize as a shift in work will occur to compensate as suggested through history and current trends.
Before delving further, it is important to understand how technology has influenced the economy in previous years. Predictions and fears of machines replacing human labor have been made before. The greatest example to refer to is the Industrial Revolution and its impact on agriculture before assembly lines and factories reined. According to, The Economist’s report “Automation and Anxiety,” textile workers, named Luddites, protested that machines and steam engines would disrupt and damage their opportunities. Their pamphlets read, “Never until now did human invention devise such expedients for dispensing with the labor of the poor,” (Automation and Anxiety). This same source includes how similar outbreaks occurred in the 1920’s and 30’s where the term “technological unemployment” was first used (Automation and Anxiety). When unrest arose again in the 40’s, the New York Times considered the revival of these worries as “old arguments (Automation and Anxiety). Yet, against all expectation, technology has always created more jobs than it has taken in the end. History also suggests that automating tasks increases the demand for human workers because they would fulfill jobs around it, the ones untouched by automation. The reasoning to this is that tasks can be done quickly or more cheaply. There are many historical examples of this in practice such as when jobs in the weaving process were being replaced by machines during the Industrial Revolution. This prompted workers to concentrate on things that machines do not have the ability to do: operate one and tend to them to make sure they continue running smoothly. According to James Bessen, an economist at the Boston University School of Law, “this caused output to grow extensively,” (Automation and Anxiety). More specifically, Bessen states, “…the amount of coarse cloth a single weaver could produce in an hour increased by a factor of 50, and the amount of labor required per yard of cloth fell by 98%. This made cloth cheaper and increased demand for it, which in turn created more jobs for weavers: their numbers quadrupled between 1830 and 1900,” (Automation and Anxiety). To put it simply, technology may have changed the essence of the weaver’s job and the required skills but did not replace it altogether. A similar attribute is found in another population affected by industrialization. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, forty-one percent of jobs belonged in agriculture (Dimitri). A century later, it has reduced to only two percent (Dimitri). The revolution did not cause mass unemployment, instead, the employees fit to what the economic situation called for. As one door closed, another opened, creating a balance of demand.
Interestingly, jobs that can adjust to the addition and accommodation of technology have shown greater success as well. According to the Atlantic’s article, “The Automation Paradox,” “It turns out that workers will have greater employment opportunities if their occupation undergoes some degree of computer automation,” (Bessen). The complexity of this is very important and is one reason that impacts success in a world growing more attached to technology. Economist and professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David H. Autor, argues further in his journal “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs?” He claims that “Technological change is not necessarily employment-increasing or Pareto-improving,” but how that change compliments a job is the dependent factor (Autor). Autor contextualizes this by stating, “A construction worker who is expert with a shovel but cannot drive an excavator will generally experience falling wages as automation advances,” and, “a bank teller who can tally currency but cannot provide “relationship banking” is unlikely to fare well at a modern bank,” (Autor). Jobs that cannot achieve these adjustments are at risk. Fortunately, this only adds up to about 5% of all jobs according to a recent study done by McKinsey & Company, a worldwide management consulting firm (Michael). This directly contradicts the very popularly referenced unpublished study that 47% of jobs will disappear in the next decade presented in scholarly article “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (Frey). The unemployment that may occur is not to scale with common beliefs and the sacrifice that technology will impose is not related to employment loss, but with the specific skills each job carries. Historical examples create templates for future predictions and are able to depict that the economy will naturally stabilize as most qualifications adjust to complement the addition of machinery in the work environment. Those which do not modify will, as authors Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson state, “lose the race against the machine,” (Brynjolfsson).
As existing jobs will need to be fit the upcoming demands, many will not face risks of being replaced at all simply due to its human aspect. Machines and software will most likely never be able to take over work that relies on interpersonal skills, creativity, emotional intelligence, and entrepreneurialism. These include physicians, nurses, trainers, caretakers, clergymen, lawyers, motivational speakers, and entertainers. An analysis of this is found in the scholarly report “Technology and people: The great job-creating machine” by Deloitte economists Ian Stewart, Alex Cole, and Debapratim De. The report followed the rates of employment in professions across 144 years. What it revealed was a 580% increase in teaching and educational support assistant, an 183% increase in welfare, housing, youth and community worker, a 909% increase in nursing positions and assistants, and a 156% positive change to Actors, dancers, entertainment presenters, producers and directors (Steward). This is due to unique abilities of decision-making, applied social skills, and creativity. Additionally, simply because something can be switched to automated, does not mean that it will be. Regardless of whether restaurants begin using tablets to take orders and robots will take the form of waitresses delivering food and beverages, society may not accept this change. It could turn out that people merely want to be served food, have their taxis driven, and have their groceries bagged. BBC article “Will Machines Eventually Take on Every Job?” refers to this, “This phenomenon is reflected in the recent resurgence of artisans in urban centers around the world… there is a booming market for handcrafted furniture made from salvaged factory beams, hand built headphones, gourmet small-batch foods ranging from marshmallows to mayonnaise – and much more,” (Nuwer). This may be due to the intrinsic desire of sentiment, tradition, or the fundamental need for human interaction. However, despite automation lacking a role in production, artisanal companies depend on technology for a market to sell goods through online websites.
Production and automation have an intertwined relationship as well. There has been a positive causation with the application of machinery and the gain that follows. The former president, Richard Nixon, reckoned this in his Labor Day Speech in 1971 by defining productivity as, “..getting more out of your work,” and explains, “When you have the latest technology to help you do your job, it means you can do more with the same effort. That’s why we say investment in modern equipment will increase productivity,” (Peters). This will lead to economic prosperity and make life more affordable for American citizens. This can already be seen in modern examples of telecommunication investment. According to author and director of Governance Studies, Darrell West, concludes that "…each 10 percentage point increase in broadband penetration adds 1.3 percent to a high-income country’s gross domestic product and 1.21 percent for low to middle-income nations,” after conducted research between 1980 and 2006 (West). As the GDP (Gross Domestic Income) increases, the economy is stimulated and ranks against competing countries.
Simultaneously, the increase in automation also allows manufacturing to remain closer to its provider, also known as nearshoring. This has the potential to reduce the cost of fabrication and could help domestic competition. President Donald Trump favors this transition as he cites the Economic Policy Institute stating, “America has lost nearly one-third of its manufacturing jobs since Nafta and 50,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization,” (Most Manufacturing). While although offshoring is a great factor, many also argue it is most likely due to the implications of current technology that have caused this. The Financial Times article “Most US Manufacturing Jobs Lost to Technology, Not Trade” concluded that 85% of this unemployment is directly due to mechanization (Most Manufacturing). While this may seem concerning, it is important to note that this is succumbing to what economists refer to as the “lump of labor” fallacy. As claimed by the previously mentioned article, “Automation and Anxiety,” is the idea that, “…there’s only a finite amount of work to do, and therefore that if you automate some of it there’s less for people to do,” (Automation and Anxiety). This can not be true as it does not follow the economic responses that have been established already from mechanization such as the resilience and adaptation of current jobs along with the creation of new ones. Instead, this may simply be the “Luddite Fallacy” at play. As lower prices have been derived from displaced workers, a greater consumer demand forms. This provides new industries with the ability to hire new workers, and the issue is solved. The rate at which this could occur is unpredictable, though it has held consistent the previous two centuries (Ten Responses).
In review, financial security will be maintained overall although some instability will arise as technology continues to enforce reform in the workplace. This is evident through references of past and present patterns monitoring changes in the qualities, quantities, and production of jobs. These portray that machinery will not substitute human workers, rather change the specific roles to accommodate and manage machines, that many occupations have reported resistant and have increased since the introduction of technology, and an escalated production will increase capital, preserving a balance of employment. In spite of situations such as in Youngstown, Ohio, it is crucial to retain optimism and a stronger awareness to win this “race against the robots” and survive this transitioning period. Change is never painless, but as George Bernard Shaw quotes, “progress is impossible without change…”
Works Cited:
"Automation and Anxiety." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 25 June 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Autor, David H. "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation." Journal of Economic Perspectives 29.3 (2015): 3-30. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Bessen, James. "The Automation Paradox." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 19 Jan. 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
"BLS Releases 2000-2010 Employment Projections." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Andrew McAfee. Race against the machine: how the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Lexington: Digital Frontier Press, 2012. Print.
Dimitri, Carolyn, Anne Effland, and Neilson Conklin. "The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy." United States Department of Agriculture, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Ford, Martin. Rise of the robots: technology and the threat of a jobless future. New York: Basic , 2016. Print.
Frey, Carl Benedikt, and Michael A. Osborne. "The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?" Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114 (2017): 254-80. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Michael Chui, James Manyika, and Mehdi Miremadi. "Four fundamentals of workplace automation." McKinsey & Company. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
"Most Manufacturing Jobs Lost to Technology, Not Trade." Financial Times. N.p., 2 Dec. 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Nuwer, Rachel. "BBC – Future – Will machines eventually take on every job?" BBC News. BBC, 06 Aug. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Peters, Gerhard , and John T. Woolley. "Richard Nixon: Address to the Nation on Labor Day. – September 6, 1971." The American Presidency Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Steward, Ian, Debapratim De, and Alex Cole. "Technology and people: The great job-creating machine | Deloitte UK." Deloitte United Kingdom. N.p., 27 Oct. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
"Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem." The Decline of Scarcity. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
Thompson, Derek. "A World Without Work." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 17 Aug. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.
West, Darrell M. "Technology and the Innovation Economy | Brookings Institution." Brookings. Brookings, 28 Sept. 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.