Over the weekend I was fortunate enough to hear Mr. Marshall Brain, author, lecturer, and founder of HowStuffWorks, speak about the robotic future of America. The venue was the Singularity Summit in San Jose (Singularity is the idea that in the near/mid future, humanity will merge with its machinery and the world will fundamentally change. Fascinating topic.)
Marshall's topic was near and dear to me, the automation of the workforce and what it means to future economic growth, unemployment, and education - he's written about it in depth in the essay Robotic Nation (click the link on Marshall's site - he doesn't appear to allow direct linking). It is clear that robots are beginning to take over in parts of our economy: manufacturing lines, vending kiosks, even retail checkout counters. Homebuilders are panelizing their framing in plants - a challenge to traditional framing crews. These robots are primitive and laughable in many ways (well not the manufacturing ones) but they are getting better. As they get better, they will replace more and more human jobs. The question (fear) is, what will we humans do once the robots take over?
Marshall had a bunch of policy prescriptions along the lines of the Progressives in the turn of the last century (early 1900s), who faced a very similar set of circumstances and fears. Except their fears were not with robots but with industrial machinery, which did the work of many men. In fact one questioner at the Summit asked Marshall sarcastically whether he had "ever heard of the course of study called 'History'?" which made me laugh out loud. Some of the Progressives' economics goals were a shorter workweek, an end to child labor, better protection for unions, and more equal distribution of the gains of technology. These are all laudable goals. Trouble is, they wanted to use government to achieve them, and hence we are left with some of the most codified and sclerotic elements of their work even today, 100 years later - the 40-hour workweek, the income tax, Social Security, and child labor laws (including truancy laws.)
The average observer would say these programs are good things - and far be it from me to argue that children should be educated, that we shouldn't work ourselves to death, or that people should not have a comfortable retirement. The issue is that we are now facing the next automation revolution and we are completely and uncreatively prepared to deal with the changes it is about to bring, because we have locked ourselves legally and institutionally into the thinking that solved the last crisis. The economy, salaries, retirement planning, and so forth are based on 40 hours of work, starting work around 16 (or 22 if you go to college) retirement at 65. These are going to have to go out the window at some point, if the robotic future is to be believed.
We would have found and been prepared for other solutions in the 100 years since the Progressive Era if the heavy hand of government had not locked the dial back then. Child labor would have gone the way of the dodo bird anyway (no parent *wants* to send their child to dangerous factory work, and only economic growth can deliver us out of that scenario). We restricted child labor to enforce adult labor, and now we are faced with robot labor. So Marshall wants to restrict adult labor (a shorter workweek), and provide for unemployment (longer unemployment benefits.) A rehash of the Progressive movement.
Similarly, the 40-hour work week is already under challenge by part-time mothers in the workforce, etc. Some people (young people for example) love to work 80 or 100 hours a week, why should they not be allowed to, and perhaps paid more for doing so (but not punitive 'overtime' pay)? Some only want to work 20, again, why can't the laws and benefit programs call those people "full-time workers" if that's what the worker and the employer agree to? We ourselves have built the rigid structure that has left us scratching our heads and wondering how we will make work for the next century.
I say, let's let the chips fall where they may this time. A creative, vibrant economy is critical to solving this global challenge. Anything we do via government to "soften the blow" is likely to make the next challenge even harder to solve. Let's let the market figure out the solution, and use government as the safety net -- not the designer and enforcer of the ideas and laws we think make sense with our limited foresight today.
Comments