Income Gap Automation

This will be another one of those "Let's ask ourselves some tough questions" newsletter intros, so if you're in the US, I definitely wouldn't blame you for not giving Actuator any your attention until the end of the holidays.

I usually approach these conversations from the same basic angle: the majority of technologies are neither inherently good nor bad. Ultimately, it is up to us, as the arbiters of these trends, to influence the impact they have on this planet and its people.

I also don't believe that most people who develop such technologies hope or expect them to have a net negative impact on life around them. However, I recognize that, more often than not, the implementation of these technologies is dependent on broader macroeconomic trends and long-standing power structures.

Given how many years I've been in this field, I suspect many technologists are tired of that old talking point: robots are coming for our jobs. And certainly, the economic trends of the past few years have offered them a simple counter-argument: there is no one to fill the jobs they replace.

As we head headlong into a holiday shopping season full of busy hours and days, consider the impact automation has had on the workforce so far work. This study co-authored by Daron Acemoglu of MIT and Pascual Restrepo of Boston University gives food for thought.

Acemoglu states, "These results are controversial in that they imply a much larger effect for automation than anyone thought."

We are starting from a very clear premise here: in 21st century America, the wealth gap is large and growing. The article, "Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality," attempts to explore the correlation between the growing income gap and automation. The results are striking. MIT Notes:

Ultimately, Acemoglu and Restrepo conclude that the effects were profound. Since 1980, for example, they estimate that automation has reduced the wages of men without a high school diploma by 8.8% and women without a high school diploma by 2.3%, adjusted for inflation.

Image Credits: xPACIFICA / Getty Images

I tend to agree with the assumption that in the short term automation will displace jobs, and in the long term it has the potential to create more and better jobs. As I have expressed many times on these pages, I am convinced that it is the role of government and business to accelerate these and ensure that the existing workforce is able to do this transition. For people who cannot transition into more technical roles for a number of reasons, these institutions must ensure that human beings do not simply slip through the cracks in the name of progress.

But I also have a rather cynical view of the ultimate end of these conversations. Ask yourself: what is the end game here? The simple answer is: Profit. If the best thing for a company's bottom line is automating all blue-collar roles, are we sure companies won't automate all unemployed workers out of the goodness of their hearts?

The precedent is important for...