Saagar Shah
Mrs. Allen
AP Seminar – Period 3
15 November 2018
The Trend of Technological Innovation on the Workforce and the Governmental Response
A nation defined by its competitive spirit or work ethic, the idea of working is ingrained in all Americans from birth. As said by Richard Nixon in his address to the nation, “…most of us consider it immoral to be lazy or slothful-even if a person is well off enough not to have to work…” (Nixon). Yet, the American work ethic and the tradition of working is under an incredible threat, that of technological innovation. America is widely regarded as being the forefront of the technology industry, housing technological powerhouses like Google, Apple and Amazon; American innovation has never been higher. A study conducted by Oxford University has concluded that computerization or automation has put “…about 47% of total US employment at risk” (Frey et al). This massive loss of employment does not only come with economic problems but brings in health and social problems as well. However, a silver lining is present as a rapid technological takeover could create jobs in the burgeoning technology sector and unemployment would open up avenues for people in menial jobs to take jobs that interest them. This tiny glimmer of hope is not enough to account for the millions that would lose their jobs, and thus brings up the question: Considering the effect of new technologies on the workforce, should American lawmakers limit technological advancement as a way to prevent a total technological takeover of American jobs? The unique ease of limiting technology, the detrimental negative health effects and the philosophical role that governments play in citizens lives show that American lawmakers can and should pass legislation that would limit technological innovation.
It is no secret that in the future jobs that were once occupied by Americans will be undertaken by automation and robotics. The Americans displaced due to technology, will be forced to find jobs or face unemployment, which leads to dangerous mental and physical effects. According to a study conducted by the National Institute of Health it was discovered that, “After unemployment, symptoms of somatization, depression, and anxiety were significantly greater in the unemployed than employed” (Linn et al.). These feelings can have a huge impact of the patients social life and can strain relationships, which can force the patient into deeper depression and anxiety. If technological innovation were to take American jobs, a negative feedback loop would be created forcing those who cannot get another job into a cycle of continued negative mental effects. The physical effects were just as detrimental as the negative effects, as reported from the NIH, “…unemployed men made significantly more visits to their physicians, took more medications, and spent more days in bed sick than did employed individuals even though the number of diagnoses in the two groups were similar” (Linn et al.). These physical effects can also produce a feedback loop, similar to the negative effects, in that if the unemployed workers spend more time injured than it would be difficult for them to find a new job or participate in modern society, which could force them into furthered negative mental and physical help. This is a concern shared among the citizens and various officials in the United States Government, as less participation in society and the economy would force the U.S. into a recession leading to even more negative mental and physical effects. The long term effects of unemployment is often homelessness, which can have a certain set of negative effects. Due to the loss of a stable source of income, a worker cannot pay for a place to live, forcing them to live on the streets. According to Boston University’s School of Public Health, it was stated that, “…the homeless have higher premature mortality than those who are appropriately housed, with injuries, unintentional overdose, and extreme weather events being important drivers of this mortality. The homeless also have poor quality of life…” (“Homelessness, Its Consequences, and Its Causes”). On top of the negative effects of unemployment, coupled with the new consequences of homelessness, those that lose their jobs to technology will be faced with massive health problems. However, there is an inherent benefit to unemployment and the idea of technology taking over the jobs of Americans. This would open up new pathways for the unemployed to pursue careers in arts and would open up time for people to pursue their interests to better society. Although a benefit that might drastically shape the American society, it would not overshadow the billions needed to support those who do not have a job due to technological advancement.
The United States Government was created with a multitude of responsibilities and holds an immense power of the rights and privileges of its citizens. Chief among those responsibilities is to protect the welfare of its citizens and to make sure that they hold the best interests of its people at heart. This is best seen with the democratic nature of the government and in the practice of citizens electing other citizens to offices of power. According to the World Economic Forum, governments are obligated in, “…providing an infrastructure of care to enable citizens to flourish socially and economically in the same way that an infrastructure of competition does” (Slaughter). By doing everything in its power to limit technological advancement, the United States government is providing a median for its citizens to flourish socially and economically. In that sense, the government is preventing the negative mental effects of unemployment and homelessness and protecting the sources of income for millions of Americans. The role that the government should play in the lives of its citizens is clearly outlined by the Constitution, the basis for American laws and guidelines in the United States. In the Preamble of the Constitution, it is clearly stated that the people establish the constitution as a way to, “…promote the general Welfare…” (U.S. Constitution. Preamble, Sec. 1.). As written by James Madison, taking influence from Libertarianism and Liberalism, the government of the United States was created to foster and keep the welfare of the citizens at the forefront of government protection. This further shows that the United States Government must take steps to limit technological advancement, due to its influence over the general welfare of the citizens of the U.S. The general welfare being tied to the mental and physical health of the population, which would be negatively affected through the loss of jobs due to technological innovation. Similar to that of the citizens, whose main concern is tied to the self, regarding the mental and physical health of themselves. Utilitarianism is a part of political philosophy, as said by Santa Clara University, that states the, “…morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected” (“Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics”). This is radically different from the perspective of Americans, who would focus on the self, because the governmental structure of the United States and its respective philosophy focuses on the health of the masses. The morally right course of action for the United States Government is the one that involves limiting technological innovation due to the fact that it would result in the greatest balance of benefits over the harms. This is best seen through the fact that limiting innovation would bypass the chance of unemployment and later, homelessness. However, through the philosophy of Libertarianism, as explained by the Cato Institute, argues for minimal state intervention into the affairs of the people, and through the limitation of technological innovation the federal government is taking on huge power and intervening on the lives of its citizens (Boaz). On the other hand, in this case, intervention is required from the United States Government as a huge step is needed not just to protect the individuals but the millions of individuals readily affected by technological innovation.
One of the main reasons that American lawmakers should limit the technological innovation is the relative ease they would have in instituting a solution that would limit technological advancement. The government promotes innovation in two ways: through funding and tax policies and through legal and regulatory factors. According the Congressional Budget Office, “Federal spending on research and development has reached $132 billion in 2013” (Musick et al.). Not only does the federal government invest immense sums of money in research and development but they also have multiple organizations that also help foster innovation. An article by Forbes details certain programs funded by the American government that fosters American innovation, such as programs like In-Q-Tel and SBIR (Satell). In fact, iRobot a leading company in robotic technology-based solution, was funded close to 5.5 million dollars through the SBIR program. Also, according to the CBO, the government implements, “tax policies to incentive [research and development]…increase loans and loan guarantees for firms that bring new technologies to market (Musick et al.). As reported by the CBO, the legal and regulatory factors that the government changes also plays a huge role in innovation, saying, “ To further encourage innovative activity, policymakers could also make changes to immigration policies, the patent system, and the regulatory regime” (Musick et al.). As shown through the development of new policies, Congress seeks to put innovation above everything, including the health and safety of its citizens. By continuing legislation that fosters trade it goes against its fundamentals, as established by the Constitution and its duty to protect its citizens. According to the CBO, “…innovators tend to underinvest in such activity…” the activity referring to R&D. The federal government spends this amount of money and time into fostering innovation as a way to compensate for the inactivity by companies and investors in the technological field. The ideal way for the federal government to limit technological innovation is to pull out all funding into the technology sector and change to legal and regulatory systems to discourage any innovation. This way the funding needed for innovation to prosper is not found and cannot be provided by private institutions and the ways for inventors to protect their inventions, i.e. patent systems, would discourage any innovation. Although there would be funding from private companies, the technologies often developed are unprofitable and there would be a lack of incentive to continue to make them. In the competitive nature of the world and specifically the U.S., America would lag behind and might lose some of its power over other countries. The overall benefit in the welfare and health of the population would make up for any lose in status and place in the world economy and on the world stage.
Through the relative ease in which the United States Government can limit technological advancement, the role that the government plays into the rights of its citizens and the health impacts of unemployment, United States lawmakers should pass legislation to limit technological innovation. This arises from the recent trends of technology and automation replacing jobs that were once completed by American workers. However, many seem to think that there is benefit in the idea of millions of Americans facing unemployment and a future of severe mental and physical health problems. Citizens believe that technological innovation would allow people to pursue jobs that interest them, for example in art, and that technology would create a multitude of jobs. This however is incorrect due to the amount of money needed in the form of welfare to provide for the unemployed and that the number of jobs created would not outweigh the number that was lost.
Word Count: 2018
Works Cited
Boaz, David. "Key Concepts of Libertarianism." Cato Institute. N.p., 01 Jan. 1999. Web. 25 November 2018.
“Federal Policies and Innovation.” CBO.gov. Congressional Budget Office. 17 November 2014. Web. 6 November 2018.
Frey, Carl Benedikt et al. “The Future Of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerization?” Oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk. Oxford University. 17 September 2013. Web. 25 November 2018.
"Homelessness, Its Consequences, and Its Causes | SPH | Boston University." Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) | Human Resources. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 November 2018.
Linn, M W et al. “Effects of unemployment on mental and physical health” American journal of public health vol. 75,5 (1985): 502-6.
Nixon, Richard. “Address to the Nation on Labor Day.” N.p. 6 September 1971. Print. 25 November 2018,
Satell, Greg. “4 Government Programs That Drive Innovation.” Forbes.com. Forbes. 2 July 2013. Web. 6 November 2018.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “3 responsibilities every government has towards its citizens.” Weforum.com. World Economic Forum. 13 February 2017. Web. 6 November 2018.
Santa Clara University. "Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics." Sustainability – Office of the Provost – Santa Clara University. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 November 2018.
U.S. Constitution. Preamble, Sec. 1.