A recent article in The Washington Post by Morgan Stanley strategist and author of “The Rise and Fall of Nations” Ruchir Sharma, provides a nuanced overview of the issues of jobs, robots, productivity and income disparity. 

In the article, Sharma suggests that because the labor pool isn’t growing fast enough to support our needs, it may not be long before economists worry about a global shortage of robots to fill those needs.

“In many industrial countries, from Germany to Japan to South Korea, growth in the working-age population has already peaked, acting as a drag on the economy. Widely overlooked, however, is the fact that the population-growth slowdown is unfolding even faster in the emerging world.”

China, the most prominent of those emerging countries, is already feeling the effects of four disruptive population trends:

1. China’s working-age population growth just turned negative and China is expected to lose 1 million workers each year for the foreseeable future.
2. Of those coming of working age, because of education and other social reasons, they don’t want to work in factories.
3. China’s elderly share of the population is rising twice as fast as in the U.S. and four times faster than in France. Unlike France and the U.S.
4. Given the widespread political backlash against immigration, compensatory immigrant increases to offset ageing workforces are unlikely.

Sharma cited an instance where Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel prize-winning psychologist/economist who wrote “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” a 2011 best seller, had occassion to comment on the subject:

“Asked by an alarmed dinner companion about the threat robots posed to jobs in China, Nobel economist Daniel Kahneman responded: “You just don’t get it. In China, the robots are going to come just in time.” No wonder Beijing now offers heavy subsidies to companies involved in industrial automation.”

Strategic long-view planning such as that exhibited by the Chinese series of 5-year plans focused on bringing robotics to China, creating an in-country robotics industry, and expanding the use of robots to provide social assistance in addition to industrial production, is being replicated in Japan, Korea and throughout the EU.

It remains to be seen how this will play out in the U.S.

If you enjoyed this article about robots and jobs, you may also want to read:

• US auto industry installed 135,000 robots and added 230,000 jobs
• What coachmen from the 1920s can tell us about robots and jobs
• Stop talking about bringing jobs back from China
• ‘Robots or jobs’ is key focus of #ERF2015
• Obama connects robots to jobs in State of the Union address

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

image: Madeline Gannon/flickr

To discover the impact of robots on the average manufacturing worker, we analysed their effect in 14 industries across 17 developed countries from 1993 to 2007. We found that industrial robots increase labour productivity, total factor productivity and wages. While they don’t significantly change total hours worked, they may be a threat to low- and middle-skilled workers.

Robots’ capacity for autonomous movement and their ability to perform an expanding set of tasks have captured writers imaginations for almost a century. Recently, robots have emerged from the pages of science fiction novels into the real world and discussions of their possible economic effects have become ubiquitous (see e.g. The Economist 2014, Brynjolfsson and McAfee 2014). But a serious problem inhibits these discussions: there has – so far – been no systematic empirical analysis of the effects that robots are already having.

This article has been adopted with minor changes from an article with the same title that appeared on voxeu.org. It summarises Graetz, G., & Michaels, G. (2015). Robots at work.

This post is part of Robohub’s Jobs Focus.

We’re in the midst of National Robotics Week, and roboticists all over the US are celebrating robotics research, development and education through hundreds of events and demonstrations at local libraries, universities, Block Parties and FIRST competitions. The point of National Robotics week is to celebrate, educate and inspire a new generation to pursue careers in robotics. But another key goal of the week is to advocate.

Advocating for cash is one part of the job, because R&D requires lots of it. And if you’re going to acquire cash from granting bodies or investors, you have to convince them that the work you are doing is important, that it’s going to solve a problem, and (if you’re a start-up) that it has commercial potential. And as robotic technologies move from research into commercial viability, advocating for robotics-friendly legislation becomes just as important: if laws and regulations prevent your product from reaching the market, it doesn’t matter how much cash you have.

Nymann Teknik arm, from Universal Robots.

So what does advocacy have to do with jobs? Plenty. The jobs issue is a visceral one. It hits us where it counts: how we earn, how we feed ourselves and our families, how we put a roof over our heads. It’s why employment is always a key issue in election politics – it’s a topic that impacts almost every voter of working age. ‘Robots and jobs’ has become a contentious issue that, like it or not, will determine the success or failure of many new robotics technologies, so it’s no great surprise that there are plenty of people who have something to say about it.

Here are the main points of view that have been entrenched and promoted:

1. Robot replace human workers, and that is a bad thing; they are a ‘disruptive force’ that will cause irrevocable harm to our entire socioeconomic system. See 60 Minutes’ Are robots hurting job growth? and CNN World’s The jobless economy, and the Economists’ Robots don’t complain or die.
2. Robots replace human workers, and that is a good thing; they will take over dull, dirty and dangerous jobs and leave us humans with more time to do interesting/productive work. See Andrew McAfee’s TED Talk, and Wired’s Better than human: Why robots will – and must – take our jobs.
3. Robots don’t steal jobs, they create them; whether through ‘re-shoring’ or through the emergence of new robotics industries, there is tremendous job growth potential for economies that support robotic technologies. See Time’s Can robots bring back manufacturing jobs to the US? and Kuka’s infographic Robots and automation bring jobs back to the US.

To help us tease out the issues we are featuring a week’s worth of coverage on the topic from top experts in the field, including fact finding, analysis and opinion. Here’s a quick teaser of what to expect over the next week or so …

A look at the numbers:

• Frank Tobe gives us a critical walk-through of IFR’s latest Metra Martech report.
• Armed with data from the recently released Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the US,  Chris Mailey from AUVSI suggests that a multibillion dollar market will quickly emerge to create over 100,000 jobs in the US by 2025 once current FAA restrictions to unmanned aerial systems are lifted, as they are schedule to do in 2015.
• Plus, a fact-finding post with all the latest economic reports on the robotics industry.

A look at influencing factors:

• John Dulchinos, Executive Board Member of the International Federation of Robotics, takes us through some of the latest jobs stats and suggest that robotics is eliminating the advantage and influence that low-cost labour has had on manufacturing.
• Rich Mahoney, Director of Robotics at SRI, says that it’s too early to make any grand predictions about how robots will affect the jobs economy in the future, but that the success of robotics companies’ management teams will surely play a critical role.
• In response to the Robotics by Invitation question “Do robots kill jobs?“, Raffaello D’Andrea, co-founder of Kiva Systems, talks about how low interest rates are fuelling the jobs debate; and Mark Tilden argues that robots are just scapegoats, and that corporate ethics are to be blamed for poor employment numbers.
• Regular Robohub contributor and agribot expert John Payne echoes the many voices in the agricultural sector, which point out that agricultural robots will be replacing job vacancies, not people.

Outlook:

• Martin Ford, author of The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future argues that as robots and other forms of automation progress, machines will take over an ever-increasing fraction of those routine jobs and significant unemployment will become inevitable.
• Federico Pistono, author of “Robots Will Steal Your Job, But That’s OK: How to Survive the Economic Collapse and Be Happy” suggests that technological unemployment is already a reality today and argues that we should use this opportunity to rethink what the purpose of society should be.
• Matt Beane, from MIT’s Sloan School of Management asks if we are on the cusp of a robotics revolution or whether robots are distracting us from the forces profoundly affecting our economy. Matt Beane’s short answer: yes.

And don’t forget:

• Coverage of this week’s Silicon Valley Robot Block Party and Xconomy Forum: Robots Remake the Workplace by Robohub correspondents Frank Tobe and Andra Keay.
• Live streaming of Stanford’s We Robot conference on robotics and the law.
• Sabine Hauert‘s report on Jobs for Roboticists.
• Frank Tobe’s post from January 2013 on how the definition of robots affects how they are perceived in the jobs debate
• And on a lighter note, Jim Haas‘ Nate the Robot – the Dilbert of robotics. Look for Nate in the sidebar!

Managing the ‘issue’ of robots and jobs is important to the success of businesses, research institutions and politicians alike, whether they are ‘for’ robots or ‘against’, so there is no doubt that you will continue to see headlines about robots and jobs for the foreseeable future, both in the mainstream media and here on Robohub. We hope you enjoy this focus series … feedback is welcome, so send us your comments!

See all the posts in Robohub’s Jobs Focus.

This Robotics By Invitation contribution is part of Robohub’s Jobs Focus.

There may be some regional effects that result in an immediate increase in jobs (for example, setting up a new manufacturing plant and hiring workers to maintain the machines), but the global effect is indisputable: overall, robots replace human workers.

What is also true, however, is that robots create jobs as well.  This is simply Economics 101: there is a redistribution of labor from low skilled jobs – what robots can do now, and the foreseeable future – to higher skilled jobs. An analogy from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture: “In 1790, 93% of the population of the United States was rural, most of them farmers. By 1990, only 200 years later, barely 2% of our population are farmers.”  What is also true is that there are many more software engineers now than there were in 1790; or mechanics; or physiotherapists; or professional athletes; or artists.

So the debate about robots replacing human workers is, for the most part, a tired and old one; just replace the word ‘robot’ with any productivity-enhancing tool or development. And as long as the process is gradual, one can reasonably argue that society benefits as a whole.

But the question does have merit, because human workers are at an artificial disadvantage relative to their robot counterparts, and the culprit is artificially low interest rates.  Large companies such as Procter and Gamble can issue 10 year corporate bonds that have astronomically low yields of 2.3%.  With money so cheap, productivity tools – such as robots – that would not be economically viable under normal interest rates and yields are now a bargain.  Why should a company ‘rent’ labor (a human worker) when it can ‘buy’ it (a robot)?  Have we not seen this storyline before?

Read more answers →

See all the posts in Robohub’s Jobs Focus →

[Photo credit: Petr Kratochvil.]

This post is part of Robohub’s Jobs Focus.

A strong argument can be made that a very large percentage of jobs are, on some level, essentially routine and repetitive in nature. In other words, the job can be broken down into a discrete set of tasks that tend to get repeated on a regular basis and can be predicated based on historical data. It seems likely that, as both computer hardware and software continue to progress, a large fraction of these job types are ultimately going to be susceptible to robotic or software automation, and in particular to machine learning technology.

Recent innovations like IBM’s Watson computer suggest that machine learning algorithms may soon be able to take on a number of cognitive tasks. As technology accelerates, I think there is little doubt that these systems will begin to match or exceed the capability of human workers in many routine job categories — and this includes a lot of workers with college degrees or other significant training.

As robots and smart algorithms increasingly take on the more routine, predictable jobs, this will leave much of our workforce with an unprecedented challenge. Historically, most workers have been able to move from routine occupations in one area to similarly routine jobs in a new emerging area, perhaps acquiring some new skills as part of the transition. However, as technology impacts virtually all routine work across the board, workers will have to find work in areas that are genuinely non-routine or creative in order to remain relevant. There are good reasons to be concerned that a significant fraction of our workforce will have great difficulty with such a transition: after all, if we assume a normal distribution or capability, then by definition, 50% of workers are average or below average.

None of this is intended to argue against continuing progress in areas like robotics, big data and AI. However, as these technologies continue to accelerate, the impact on employment and income inequality is likely to become more and more visible to the general public. Ultimately, I think that in order to solve the distributional problems that will be created by automation — and to ensure continued, broad-based prosperity — we will need to reform our economic systems. If we fail to do this, it seems very likely that a public backlash against automation technologies, as well as significant social and economic upheaval could well result.

This post is part of Robohub’s Jobs Focus. 

Those of us who have been speaking about the tremendous impact of automation in the workforce know very well that this isn’t a fad about to pass, but that it’s a problem that will only exacerbate in the future. Most of us agree on what the problem is (exponential growth of high-tech replacing humans faster and faster), and we agree that education will play a crucial role; but very few seem to suggest that we should use this opportunity to re-think our entire economic system and what the purpose of society should be.

We have come to believe that we are dependent on governments and corporations for everything, and now that technology is ever more pervasive, our dependence on them is even stronger. And of course we don’t question the cycle of labor-for-income, income-for-survival and the conspicuous consumption model that has become dominant in virtually every country – and that not only is ecologically unsustainable, but it also generates immense income inequality.

Well, I do. I challenge the assumption that we should live to work, and even that we should work to live, for that matter. In an age where we already produce more than enough food, energy, and drinkable water for 7 billion people with little to no human labour, while 780 million lack access to clean water and 860 million are suffering from chronic hunger, it follows that the system we have in place isn’t allocating resources efficiently. And rather than going back to outdated ideologies (i.e. socialism), we can try new forms of societal structure; starting with open source philosophy, shared knowledge, self-reliance, and sustainable communities.

There are many transitional steps that we can take  – reduced workweek, reform patent and copyright laws, switch to distributed and renewable energies – and there will be bumps along the road, no doubt. But if we move in the right direction, if we are ready to abandon ideologies and stick to whatever works best, I think we will prevail – simply because we will realise that there is no war other than the one we are fighting with ourselves.

See all the posts in Robohub’s Jobs Focus →