Don’t fear rise of the robots
WE SHOULDN’T be surprised the TUC is waxing lyrical about how robots and new technology will liberate us all to work less for the same money.
After all, no less an authority than Karl Marx claimed automation would help free the miserable proletariat from their drudgery.
John Maynard Keynes predicted in his 1930 essay, Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren, that technology would allow people to work no more than 15 hours a week. ‘Three hours a day is quite enough,’ he opined. Keynes didn’t have any grandchildren, but if he had, it’s highly unlikely they would be basking in hours of leisure time.
Employment in the UK is at its highest since 1974, when Abba won the Eurovision song contest and we actually did have a threeday week but for all the wrong reasons.
Not everyone sees the advance of robots into the workplace, in warehouses, manufacturing plants and in new possible arenas such as care homes, as a good thing. Fears that machines will make humans redundant or enslave us are as old as technology itself. Crackpot ideas such as Amazon’s robot-driven cage for its employees – now mercifully ditched – don’t exactly help.
In a fascinating speech last week on the future of work that was overshadowed by yet another Brexit row, Bank of England governor Mark Carney said that, in the past, machines substituted for ‘hands’ or manual labour. Now artificial intelligence means they might replace ‘heads’ or brain work, leaving ‘hearts’ to people – in other words, work that involves emotion, imagination, innovation, caring and creativity, which could translate into more fulfilling work that adds value to the economy.
HISTORY tells us automation does not take away human work, but it shifts people from one type of work to another. One of the biggest technological revolutions receives virtually no attention from economists because it has mainly affected women. But, by making housework so much easier, the spread of domestic appliances such as vacuum cleaners and washing machines has arguably changed the workplace and society as much as the smartphone.
The idea that robots will take employment away from humans rests on the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy that there are a fixed number of jobs in an economy, so if a robot takes one, a human being will be consigned to the dole queue. In reality, it is not like that. Economies are dynamic, so if robots add to productivity and growth then more, not fewer, jobs will be created for humans.
This doesn’t mean the introduction of technology will be seamless. Overall, technology may be beneficial, but individuals can and do lose out if their jobs are taken over by machines and they are not able to find alternative employment quickly.
What Keynes ignored in his analysis is that many of us, probably including himself, have workaholic tendencies and absolutely don’t want to be idle.
For anyone who wonders why multimillionaire chief executives don’t just put their feet up and enjoy their loot, think of it this way: the higher paid someone is, and the more status and admiration they glean from their work, the less incentive they have to take more leisure time.
An hour spent working is worth so much more, in terms of money and ego, to the high-achieving classes than one spent by the pool. The rest of us can carry on fantasising about those four-day weeks.