It is only June, but thus far, the 2016 presidential election cycle has been one of the most unusual and eventful in American history. Donald Trump, a brash real estate mogul and reality TV star from New York City, whose campaign began as a punchline for late-night talk show hosts, has secured enough delegates to win the Republican nomination, beating out governors, senators, and a celebrated neurosurgeon.
Meanwhile, amongst Democrats, Bernie Sanders, a septuagenarian democratic socialist from Vermont, won 19 states to date, along with more than 12 million votes, and 45% of all pledged delegates, while building a massive following, and directing considerable attention towards issues of income inequality and economic justice. Sanders ultimately lost to Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state, senator and First Lady, who is the first female presidential nominee for a major American political party.
The Republican contest has been particularly heated, with talk of a ban on Muslims entering the United States, criticism of a sitting federal judge who is hearing a case where Mr. Trump is being sued, border walls, and a Twitter faceoff over the attractiveness of the wives of Ted Cruz and Mr. Trump. While Democrats have faced fewer such charged moments, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton sparred aggressively, most notably when Sanders attacked Clinton’s speaking fees, earned for appearances before employees of Goldman Sachs and other financial firms, while Clinton asserted that Sanders’ plans were largely unfeasible.
Yet, throughout this campaign, an important topic has gone essentially unmentioned, despite it’s considerable relevance to our shared future as a nation:
Given the rise of robotics, artificial intelligence and other technologies which are likely to eliminate the jobs of millions of American workers, what are your plans for helping our nation’s workforce, and their families, to adjust and prepare for this new reality?
Over the past several years, scientists have warned that robots, along with artificial intelligence and machine learning tools more broadly, are likely to eliminate millions of jobs over the next few decades, with some researchers estimating that around 47% of all American jobs are at risk. Fields like transportation (taxi and truck drivers) will face a massive headcount reduction, as self-driving vehicles eventually replace human operators. Manufacturing has already become increasingly automated and robotized (perhaps most dramatically illustrated in a Chinese factory where robots recently eliminated 90% of human jobs), a trend which is now spreading to service jobs as well.
Skilled work is also facing downsizing and adjustment, as machine learning and artificial intelligence allows computers to process massive amounts of data in the blink of an eye. The legal field is one area where this sort of innovation is taking place at a fevered pace, as is finance, particularly with the rise of asset management firms which run entirely on artificial intelligence-based strategies.
While experts differ as to the precise impact of these changes on employment, with some arguing that these technologies could result in the creation of at least some new jobs, almost everyone agrees that the nature of employment will shift considerably in the coming decades.
Yet, we hear very little about this sea change, from either the Clinton or Trump campaign.
Mr. Trump has been strident in his opposition to the US-Chinese trade imbalance, describing it as “rape” as well as “the greatest theft in the history of the world.” Yet, as a recent piece from James Pethokoukis in The Week recently noted, while trade with China, and specifically the growth of Chinese manufacturing, did have a negative impact on American manufacturing employment, that story is largely “yesterday’s news.” Today, China is utilizing robots and other tools to automate it’s manufacturing operations, and if these functions were moved to the United States, we would see these tasks completed by robots based in America (as opposed to China). Examining these changes, Pethokoukis observes that “it’s automation, not globalization, that poses the bigger risk to the economic security of the American labor force.”
Secretary Clinton’s proposals around trade and manufacturing, also fail to consider this critical challenge. On her website, Secretary Clinton vows to “strengthen investment in American manufacturing — so we make it in America”, and to “create incentives for companies to bring back jobs to the U.S.” This begs the same sort of question that Pethokoukis raised: Is an American machine or robot, preferable to it’s Chinese counterpart? Because that is how products will ultimately be manufactured.
Beyond manufacturing, neither Mr. Trump nor Secretary Clinton has shown any real inclination to discuss the potential consequences of automation more broadly, whether in the service industry (both have commented on a possible minimum wage increase, but said little about growing automation in areas like fast food restaurants), or elsewhere. There’s no indication that either has addressed the merits or challenges of a guaranteed minimum income, large-scale job retraining, or other measures which might assist displaced workers. What’s more, neither candidate seems to have much to say about the social impact of these changes.
In one sense, it isn’t surprising that neither candidate has spent much time discussing these matters. After all, reminding millions of Americans that their jobs are threatened, not by external adversaries, such as foreign nations, or multinational corporations, but rather, robots and software developed in office parks in Silicon Valley, is hardly a winning campaign narrative; for a political campaign, it isn’t convenient, or easy to sell.
Yet, real leadership requires that we take stock of what’s happening around technology and employment, and craft a sustainable, pragmatic path forward. Delay and denial will only cause more pain, especially when millions of lives are facing such serious challenges. Thus far, neither candidate has shown much willingness to address the likelihood that tomorrow’s employment market, will be very different from the landscape of today, and we need to plan for this new future.
No comments:
Post a Comment