“The new frontier is learning how to design the relationships between people, robots, and infrastructure,” says David Mindell, the Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing, and a professor of aeronautics and astronautics. “We need new sensors, new software, new ways of architecting systems.” Photo: Len Rubenstein

Science and technology are essential tools for innovation, and to reap their full potential, we also need to articulate and solve the many aspects of today’s global issues that are rooted in the political, cultural, and economic realities of the human world. With that mission in mind, MIT’s School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences has launched The Human Factor — an ongoing series of stories and interviews that highlight research on the human dimensions of global challenges. Contributors to this series also share ideas for cultivating the multidisciplinary collaborations needed to solve the major civilizational issues of our time.

David Mindell, the Frances and David Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing and Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, researches the intersections of human behavior, technological innovation, and automation. Mindell is the author of five acclaimed books, most recently “Our Robots, Ourselves: Robotics and the Myths of Autonomy” (Viking, 2015). He is also the co-founder of Humatics Corporation, which develops technologies for human-centered automation. SHASS Communications recently asked him to share his thoughts on the relationship of robotics to human activities, and the role of multidisciplinary research in solving complex global issues.

Q: A major theme in recent political discourse has been the perceived impact of robots and automation on the United States labor economy. In your research into the relationship between human activity and robotics, what insights have you gained that inform the future of human jobs, and the direction of technological innovation?

A: In looking at how people have designed, used, and adopted robotics in extreme environments like the deep ocean, aviation, or space, my most recent work shows how robotics and automation carry with them human assumptions about how work gets done, and how technology alters those assumptions. For example, the U.S. Air Force’s Predator drones were originally envisioned as fully autonomous — able to fly without any human assistance. In the end, these drones require hundreds of people to operate.

The new success of robots will depend on how well they situate into human environments. As in chess, the strongest players are often the combinations of human and machine. I increasingly see that the three critical elements are people, robots, and infrastructure — all interdependent.

Q: In your recent book “Our Robots, Ourselves,” you describe the success of a human-centered robotics, and explain why it is the more promising research direction — rather than research that aims for total robotic autonomy. How is your perspective being received by robotic engineers and other technologists, and do you see examples of research projects that are aiming at human-centered robotics?

A: One still hears researchers describe full autonom as the only way to go; often they overlook the multitude of human intentions built into even the most autonomous systems, and the infrastructure that surrounds them. My work describes situated autonomy, where autonomous systems can be highly functional within human environments such as factories or cities. Autonomy as a means of moving through physical environments has made enormous strides in the past ten years. As a means of moving through human environments, we are only just beginning. The new frontier is learning how to design the relationships between people, robots, and infrastructure. We need new sensors, new software, new ways of architecting systems.

Q: What can the study of the history of technology teach us about the future of robotics?

A: The history of technology does not predict the future, but it does offer rich examples of how people build and interact with technology, and how it evolves over time. Some problems just keep coming up over and over again, in new forms in each generation. When the historian notices such patterns, he can begin to ask: Is there some fundamental phenomenon here? If it is fundamental, how is it likely to appear in the next generation? Might the dynamics be altered in unexpected ways by human or technical innovations?

One such pattern is how autonomous systems have been rendered less autonomous when they make their way into real world human environments. Like the Predator drone, future military robots will likely be linked to human commanders and analysts in some ways as well. Rather than eliding those links, designing them to be as robust and effective as possible is a worthy focus for researchers’ attention.

Q: MIT President L. Rafael Reif has said that the solutions to today’s challenges depend on marrying advanced technical and scientific capabilities with a deep understanding of the world’s political, cultural, and economic realities. What barriers do you see to multidisciplinary, sociotechnical collaborations, and how can we overcome them?

A: I fear that as our technical education and research continues to excel, we are building human perspectives into technologies in ways not visible to our students. All data, for example, is socially inflected, and we are building systems that learn from those data and act in the world. As a colleague from Stanford recently observed, go to Google image search and type in “Grandma” and you’ll see the social bias that can leak into data sets — the top results all appear white and middle class.

Now think of those data sets as bases of decision making for vehicles like cars or trucks, and we become aware of the social and political dimensions that we need to build into systems to serve human needs. For example, should driverless cars adjust their expectations for pedestrian behavior according to the neighborhoods they’re in?

Meanwhile, too much of the humanities has developed islands of specialized discourse that is inaccessible to outsiders. I used to be more optimistic about multidisciplinary collaborations to address these problems. Departments and schools are great for organizing undergraduate majors and graduate education, but the old two-cultures divides remain deeply embedded in the daily practices of how we do our work. I’ve long believed MIT needs a new school to address these synthetic, far-reaching questions and train students to think in entirely new ways.

Interview prepared by MIT SHASS Communications
Editorial team: Emily Hiestand (series editor), Daniel Evans Pritchard

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.

Source: IFR.org

In the last six years, (2010–2015), according to the IFR (International Federation of Robotics), US industry has installed around 135,000 new industrial robots. The principal driver is automation in the car industry. During this same period, (2010–2015), the number of employees in the automotive sector increased by 230,000.

This news affirms the conclusions of a study conducted by the market research firm, Metra Martech, “Positive Impact of Industrial Robots on Employment,” that there will be growth in robot use over the next five years resulting in the creation of one million high-quality jobs around the world.  “Robots, in addition to the auto industry, will help to create jobs in some of the most critical industries of this century: consumer electronics, food, solar & wind power, and advanced battery manufacturing to name just a few.”

“The rapid rise of robot use in the United States is impressive for several reasons,” said Jeff Burnstein, President of Robotic Industries Association.

1. The industry’s largest user, the automotive industry, has accelerated its purchases of robots and at the same time created more jobs in the manufacturing process.
2. There has been strong growth in the use of robots in general industry, as robots further penetrate industries such as life sciences, warehousing, and semiconductor and electronics manufacturing.
3. The use of robots is rising in small and medium sized companies who see robotics as a key factor in improving productivity and product quality in order to stay globally competitive. We expect these trends to continue well into the future.

According to the International Federation of Robotics, car manufacturers and component suppliers will continue to be heavy users of robots. In addition, more and more new companies specialized in electric or autonomous vehicles that are starting up in the United States and are in need of modern and efficient production facilities. The electronics industry continues to be the fastest-growing emerging industry for industrial robots in the United States (2014-2015 = +41%). Increasing numbers of orders can also be expected from the metals and machinery industry, the rubber and plastics industry, the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry, and the food and beverage industry.

In our final interview in The Robot Economy series, we speak with Mady Delvaux, Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and Chair of the Working Group on robotics. Mady has written an extensive draft report “Civil Law Rules on Robotics,” and proposes the creation of a legal framework for automation and ways to promote European industry.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

I believe that robots will impact the economy positively because it will allow us to be more competitive. I would like European industry to be strong, and to continue to produce in Europe rather than delocalise. I believe robots could be instrumental in bringing industry back to Europe. You always need innovation, innovation is positive for Europe, and there are so many synergies between different sectors of European industry.

It’s my first mandate as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP). The European Parliament can propose laws through reports provided to the European Commission, which is then able to legislate.

I’m a member of the committee on Legal Affairs, and decided to lobby colleagues to set up a working group on robotics. I chaired the committee, which brought together members from every political party, and members from other committees on employment, civil liberties, and industry. We also invited experts, that’s one of the nice things about being an MEP, you identify people you would like to talk to, and they are happy to join! We had monthly working group meetings which resulted in a report.

The report looks at how we can promote European industry, while emphasizing robots that are friendly to humans. We need a high standard for robots in terms of safety and security. There are also many issues around liability and legislation which are not yet urgent, but may be in 10-15 years. And then there is the “jobs discussion” we read about in the media. The reality is that no one really knows what the impact will be. We’ve asked the European Commission to closely monitor the employment market, so that we can know what jobs are taken over, and which jobs aren’t. If robots do destroy jobs, then we need to think about how to finance the social systems. This could be through a tax on robots, perhaps to insure a Basic Universal Income. Industry is alarmed, but we should at least think about this. The goal is really to be prepared in case this displacement does happen. Another issue is privacy, robots typically only work if they are connected, and then the question is who owns the data, and who has access to it.

What are some of the recommendations from the report?

We asked the European Commission to put up a register that defines categories for robots and keeps track of them, what they do, and where they are. We already do this with cars for example.

On ethics, we suggested the creation of Research Ethics Committees (REC) in universities to think of the ethical aspects of the work they are doing. In the health sector, prosthetics and implants, raise questions around the enhancement of human capabilities. There is also a question about equality, who has access to robot technology, who will pay for it, and how can knowledge be evenly distributed?

What are some of the positive aspects highlighted?

Robots can facilitate the life of people. Technology is usually developed to make life easier, but there is always a bright side, and a dark side. We need a responsible way to interact with robots. Interactions will be more complex in all sectors, for example in agriculture, health, elder care, or education. Robots could be an excellent tool for teachers, but there are other domains where robots shouldn’t be used. Many worry about the human aspect. But there may also be a danger with the development of android robots, that could be confused with humans. Robots shouldn’t be confusing. I personally believe in having a human in the loop.

Has your view about robotics changed since you’ve started working on the report?

I didn’t know anything about robots, and I don’t like science fiction. I’ve learned a lot through the making of this report, and it has completely changed my view. At the start I was a bit sceptical, I am now more friendly to the technology.

How should we communicate about robotics?

We should use all channels, and simple messages. Robots have strongly reduced the number of accidents in the oil and gas industry, why don’t we say it! These should be the headlines.

What can we expect next with the report?

Committees are working on the draft report to provide their opinion, the deadline for feedback is end of October. I hope that we will then have a procedure committee, followed by a plenary two months later. Overall, I hope we will have a vote in the European Parliament in January. The European Commission would then receive the report, and decide to accept the recommendations.

This is the final article in a series of three interviews about the robot economy. Read part one here and part two here.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

In today’s interview, we sat down with Alan Manning, Professor of Labour Economics at the London School of Economics. He is a leading author in his field, particularly in understanding the imperfections of labour markets.

How do you think robots will impact the economy?

Like any new technology, there will be winners and losers. On the whole, however, I believe there will be more winners.

Who will the winners be?

The winners will mostly be two groups: First robots will be used by firms to make production cheaper, which will in turn lower prices, and benefit the consumer. Second, because consumers are getting products cheaper, they will have more money to spend, which will boost the economy as a whole.

There have been discussions about robotics increasing inequality, and a tax on automation as a way to counter this. What do you think?

Don’t tax automation, let automation happen and then correct its effects. Redistribution of wealth should be done amongst the workers by taxing high wage workers more, and redistributing these earnings to low-wage workers. Overall, I don’t think robots will necessarily raise inequality but if it does, we have well-established ways to respond to that.

Are there differences in the way Europe, the US, Japan or China perceive the robot economy?

There has been a very long history of people worrying about new technology lowering wages and bringing upon the end of work. I think those fears are exaggerated.

Perception is broadly similar across the different regions – but problems in the labour market are slightly different from one country to the other. In the US they worry about stagnation and a jobless recovery. In the UK, we haven’t had stagnation, but we worry about the quality of jobs and the lowering of living standards. In Europe, the worry is about joblessness. Right now there is a tendency to blame robots for all of these problems, and it plays into the general lack of optimism.

Could robots be a solution to the perceived slouch in the economy?

More investment in modern technology, including robotics, would help increase productivity. Historically, rising productivity has improved everyone’s living standards. If optimism about the opportunities that new technology offers could suffuse the economy that would do something to off-set the pessimism that has taken hold.

Yet the media are constantly reporting on the high percentage of jobs that may be “replaced” by robots. Do you have a number to give us?

If I had to give a number, I would say that the impact of new technology on jobs is zero. Meaning that the net percentage of people employed will stay the same overall.

Numbers reported on in mainstream media are often misinterpreted as being predictions, the simplistic conclusion is read as “40 % of jobs will disappear”. I don’t think that’s the right interpretation even if 40% of occupations are affected by robots. The main problem is that this approach looks directly at specific jobs that are affected instead of looking at jobs overall. It is clear that there will be occupations where opportunities will fall because of robots. Other opportunities will also be created due to an increase in spending power. These will not necessarily be new jobs, just more old jobs as consumers spend the extra spending money that comes from the falling prices caused by new technology.

What should we be thinking about regarding regulation to make the most of the robot economy?

One issue is whether people will feel comfortable having a job a done by a robot, that was previously done by a human. Will they be happy with autonomous cars, or autonomous doctors? Regulation can ensure that technology is really better at these tasks before they are deployed, and can help reassure those who show resistance to the technology.

Another issue is intellectual property (IP). Robotics is the source of new knowledge, knowledge can be spread freely across everyone. However, if we are aggressive with IP, we will limit the extent of use of this technology, which would reduce competition in the market. It would help to think a bit more about the consequences of our IP laws and how they are going to help.

Ideally, we would want to have as many people as possible who can understand, have access to, and use this technology. Obviously, you have to strike a balance by providing incentives to motivate people to improve knowledge, but without allowing them to entirely keep that knowledge for themselves.

This is the second in a series of three interviews about the robot economy. Read part one, here.

Read the previous articles in the European Robotics series here.

This series is published on the SPARC website and Robohub. Funding for the series was provided by RockEU – a Coordination and Support Action funded under FP7 by the European Commission, Grant Agreement Number 611247.

Ben Casselman, writing on the website FiveThirtyEight, says that manufacturing jobs are never coming back. He warns candidates to not inflame voters with empty promises and provides facts to prove his point.

It’s understandable that voters are angry about trade. The U.S. has lost more than 4.5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994. And there’s mounting evidence that U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, has caused lasting harm to many American workers. But rather than play to that anger, candidates ought to be talking about ways to ensure that the service sector can fill manufacturing’s former role as a provider of dependable, decent-paying jobs.

Here’s the problem: Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains, and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago.

Look at the chart above. Since the recession ended in 2009, manufacturing output has risen by more than 20% because of a combination of “reshoring” and increased demand. But manufacturing employment is up just 5%. And much of that growth represents a rebound from the recession, not a sustainable trend.

Facts like these don't stop Donald Trump from promising to “take our jobs back from China and all those other countries.” Or Bernie Sanders saying, “I'm tired of seeing them creating jobs all over the world while they're laying off American workers. That's not acceptable. That is going to end.”

In 1994 there were 3.5 million more Americans working in manufacturing than in retail. Today, those numbers have almost exactly reversed. More than 80% of all private jobs are now in the retail sector. Like it or not, the U.S. is now a service-based economy. This is not new news. 

To read the complete Casselman article, click here.

Remember the 1998 movie Primary Colors with John Travolta, Emma Thompson, Kathy Bates, Billy Bob Thorton, Adrian Lester, Rob Reiner and Larry Hagman? The movie about Bill Clinton's 1992 run for the White House but with fictional characters? Gov. Jack Stanton was the candidate? There's a scene during the campaign where Gov. Stanton addresses a group of union workers at a union hall. 

I know you work hard and have little time to rest. Some of us got more time than we'd like. Right, I understand. Since this factory closed, how many of you have found work? Raise your hands.

How many of you work jobs that just pay the rent, no matter how many hours you work? My mama worked jobs like that after my daddy died. I remember her coming home from work just bone weary. I know she wanted to play with me and ask me about school. But sometimes you're too tired to do anything but blob out In front of the tube. I don't have to tell you how hard it is to find work. . . or anything at all about hard times. So I'm going to do something really outrageous. I'm going to tell the truth.

I know what you're thinking. He must be really desperate to do that. But if you've had to swallow enough sh-garbage-… Here's the truth. No politician can re-open this factory or bring back the jobs. . . or make your union strong again. No politician can make it the way it was. Because we now live in a world without economic borders. Push a button in New York and a billion dollars moves to Tokyo. In that world, muscle jobs go where muscle labor is cheap, and that is not here. So to compete, you have to exercise a different muscle: the one between your ears. The whole country must go back to school. We have to get smarter, learn skills. And I promise this: I will work hard for you. I will think about you. I will fight to make education a lifetime thing in this country. . . to give you the support you need to move up. But you have to do the heavy lifting your own selves. Now, I've taken a lot of hits in this campaign. But you know what that means? It means someone thinks you're interested in that kind of garbage. Tuesday, when you go to cast your vote, think about that. Think about what you' re really interested in. Then pick your candidate.

Don't you wish for this type of candor? Especially in light of the facts? I do.

For the first time, robotics was featured in the annual Economic Report of the President. The hefty 435 page report from the President and the Council of Economic Advisors was released to Congress on Feb 2016. This shows the increasing importance of robotics in world economic strategy.

On the whole, the report found that productivity and labor growth were significantly increased via robotics, which accounted for 10% of GDP growth and 16% of labor productivity growth, in spite of a climate of job loss anxiety.

In 2015, we continued to take steps forward, with strong job growth and wages rising at their fastest rate in the recovery. Here in Washington, Congress came together to pass a budget, secure long-term transportation funding, reform education laws, and make tax cuts for working families permanent. So claims that America’s economy is in decline or that we haven’t made progress are simply not true. What is true — and the reason that a lot of Americans feel anxious — is that the economy has been changing in profound ways, starting long before the Great Recession. Today, technology doesn’t just replace jobs on the assembly line, but rather affects any job where work can be automated. Companies in a global economy face tougher competition from abroad, and they can locate anywhere. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise. And more and more wealth and income is concentrated at the very top. [President Obama, Economic Report of the President 2016]

Overall, the Economic Report is very startup and technology centric, with calls for open internet, open innovation, and open immigration. “Immigrants accounted for about one-quarter of U.S.-based Nobel Prize recipients” … “24 percent of all patents originating from the United States are authored by non-citizens”.

And although the report lauds startups as the engine of economic growth, it also points to declining dynamism in the US, with the rate of venture investment dropping and the number of new firms created in decline over the last 40 years. After looking at the underlying metrics of entrepreneurship and innovation, the report takes a deep dive into two specific technologies that will shape the future; robotics and internet communication technologies.

Startups are vital to productivity growth in the United States. Startups are often the way in which a new product or service is first brought to market. A case in point is the small company that Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard founded in a garage in Palo Alto in 1939, which commercialized an early version of an electronic oscillator, a vital component in electronic devices. Hewlett and Packard’s inventions, along with those of multiple other electronics inventors, helped spur the information technology-fueled productivity rebound in the mid-1990s, which saw average labor productivity growth jump more than a percentage point to 2.4 percent a year (Jorgenson and Stiroh 2000; Oliner and Sichel 2002). [p. 201]

The declining investment figures are considered in a broader economic landscape of slowing productivity, and it’s worth considering that the recent increase in investment in Silicon Valley has a lot to do with foreign capital. Jason Furman, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors also states that the contribution of capital to productivity growth has decreased significantly. (Furman 2015)

While Federally funded R&D has declined, over the last 10 years, private investment in R&D has increased, with the manufacturing industry in the lead.

Private business accounts for virtually all of the recent growth in R&D. Nonprofit institutions like universities had a negligible impact on growth. The manufacturing sector is an important driver of R&D. In 2013 and 2014, manufacturing accounted for roughly 75 percent of R&D growth and non-manufacturing accounted for the other 25 percent (see Table 5-1). Two manufacturing sectors that have notably improved relative to the pre-crisis time period (2001–2007) are semiconductors and electronic components and motor vehicles and parts. In addition, manufacturing employs 60 percent of U.S. R&D employees and accounts for more than two thirds of total R&D volume in the United States. Manufacturing is also responsible for the vast majority of U.S. patents issued (Sperling 2013). [p. 210]

The United States is the largest R&D investor in the world, with a share of about 30 percent of world R&D spending forecasted in 2014. Although second-place China is rapidly catching up, it currently only contributes about 18 percent of world R&D spending (Grueber and Studt 2013). The United States could, however, contribute much more to R&D. When R&D spending is measured as a share of the economy, the United States ranks 10th out of OECD countries.

Increasing patent litigation also seems to account for declining innovation and entrepreneurship across the US (Morton and Shapiro 2014), with a decrease in the number of first time patent applications, as opposed to serial patent filers. Venture capital investment is also found to decrease in fields of increased patent litigation (Kiebzak, Rafert, and Tucker 2016).

This chapter of the report concludes with an in-depth evaluation of the impact of two new technology areas, robotics and internet communications technologies.

The report also considers the challenges associated with each of these technologies. While both technologies clearly have the potential to have an uneven impact on society, robotics is still seen primarily as a labor issue.

More specifically, in the area of robotics, this section explores concerns that increased automation in the workplace threatens to displace elements of the conventional labor force. It is important to keep in mind that, while growing quickly, robotics are not poised to affect every area of the economy or replace human labor. Nonetheless, robotics still have the potential to be highly consequential for firms and, more broadly, for productivity. [p. 236]

Whereas, internet communications technology is seen as having two hot spots, the on-demand economy and the digital divide. Even though the on-demand economy has already shown the potential to have a much greater impact on the labor market than robotics and automation, it is a more invisible ‘enemy’.

The rise of the so-called on-demand economy — enabled by mobile Internet applications — also has the potential for productivity and welfare gains but could possibly lead to worker displacement, a prospect that is examined here as well. This section also emphasizes the need to narrow what is commonly called the digital divide—the gap between those who can access the Internet and those who cannot—so that all may share in its benefits, the existence of which is well-supported by empirical findings in the economics literature. [p. 236]

Robotics have played as large a role in US economy as the advent of the steam engine. Between 1993 and 2007, robotics added an average of 0.37 percentage point to a country’s annual GDP growth, accounting for about one-tenth of GDP growth during this time period (Graetz and Michaels 2015). This same study also estimates that robotics added 0.36 percentage point to labor productivity growth, accounting for about 16 percent of labor productivity growth during this time period. This effect is of similar magnitude to the impact that the advent of steam engines had on labor productivity growth (Crafts 2004).

Growth in robotics has doubled since then, according to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR). This is bound to be a conservative measure, due to the difficulty of accounting for increased robot sales in non-traditional industries.

The number of patents granted with Robot class has doubled in the last 5 years after a relatively flat decade. At present, there is little evidence of concentrated patent ownership, which is positive for entrepreneurship and implies healthy competition leading to more innovation and lower prices. Lower prices will allow more downstream firms to acquire robots, thus driving productivity growth further. On a cautious note, intellectual property ownership may be a source of concern.

With regards to the labor issue, this report provides an excellent contextual compilation of the latest studies in the area, generally with positive findings. However, many of the cited studies conflate robotics, automation and computerization. Understandable in the context of broad societal fears of job loss due to the historic reduction of manufacturing jobs leading to a declining employment rate for men 25 to 54. However, the occasional conflation of computerization, automation and robotics leads to biased or inaccurate figures, and undermines the expectations of job vulnerability.

Historically, as waves of technological innovation displace workers, productivity increases, wealth increases and more jobs are created. Most economists agree that robotics is increasing productivity, so the discussion relates primarily to where the wealth and job growth will occur (Piketty 2013).

Will robots complement labor or substitute for labor? If the latter, will workers have sufficient bargaining power to share in the productivity gains?

One of the few studies in this area finds that higher levels of robot density within an industry lead to higher wages in that industry (Graetz and Michaels 2015), suggesting that robots are complements to labor. The higher wages, however, might be due in part to robots’ replacing lower-skill workers in that industry, thus biasing wage estimates upwards. [p. 242]

Previous waves of automation show a pattern of complementary job creation, with new work roles emerging to support and maintain the new technologies (Autor 2015). The transition from horse to car saw the reduction of occupations like hostlers and farriers, and the development of new occupations like gas station attendants and auto-mechanics. Keynes (1930) coined the phrase “technological unemployment” to describe the period of change, as society struggled to shift labor into newly created positions.

If jobs are reallocated by automation, then no one seems to agree on which jobs will be lost. Autor and Dorn (2013) point to middle-skill jobs, ie. bookkeepers, assembly-line workers. The authors also believe that the labor market has become increasingly polarized away from middle-skill jobs, and that high-skill jobs are less likely to be automated as they require problem solving capabilities, intuition and creativity. This viewpoint is under threat from AI however – again conflating the differences between robotics and AI, automation and computerization.

Frey and Osborne (2013) argue that big data and machine learning will make it possible to automate many tasks that were difficult to automate in the past. [p. 243]

Perhaps a simpler way of looking at the overarching issues is that you can now find studies to support a wide range of viewpoints on the future of work, robotics and automation.

The White House report describes a range of new and proposed future policies, including business tax reform, increased support for manufacturing, robotics, scientific research and development, increased minimum wage, reskilling initiatives and ongoing support for entrepreneurship.

The Administration’s latest Strategy for American Innovation, released in October 2015, details three key areas of investment that the government can pursue to ensure that the United States retains its innovative edge in the decades to come by: 1) continuing to invest in Federal R&D and other building blocks for future private sector scientific and technological breakthroughs; 2) advancing Federal efforts in national priority areas like precision medicine and advanced manufacturing; and 3) improving the Federal Government’s capacities for innovation. [p. 254]

The Economic Report of the President sets the scene for the next decades of revitalization of US manufacturing with robotics, and the emerging transfer of robotics technologies into the service and business sectors to support society in areas like agriculture and the ageing population. While there will be stress points, there is much to be gained, including maintaining innovation and economic growth.

In this episode Andrew Vaziri speaks with Mike Osborne, Associate Professor in Machine Learning at the University of Oxford. They discuss how advancements in artificial intelligence may change the workforce, the economy and society based on findings from their study on the future of employment.Beyond the big headlines about automation and jobs, Mike discusses how the study was done, the emergence of new jobs, the need for improved education, and ideas for how we might reshape society to spread wealth that results from advances in technology.

Michael Osborne

Michael Osborne is the Dyson Associate Professor in Machine Learning, Official Fellow of Exeter College and Faculty Member of the Oxford-Man Institute of Quantitative Finance, all at the University of Oxford. He co-leads theMachine Learning Research Group, a sub-group of the Robotics Research Group in the Department of Engineering Science.

Links:

• Download mp3 (13.3 MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Michael Osborne’s Website
• Future of Employment Study

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 post is part of Robohub’s Jobs Focus.

At this stage, I don’t think the core technology is the primary differentiator for the success of emerging companies. One aspect of robotics commercialization that is often highlighted, but often overlooked, is the fact that the actual business value of a robotics company can take many years to validate. The existing base of successful robotics companies, Intuitive Surgical, iRobot, etc., all took close to a decade or more to become successful. The basic premise is that low-cost hardware is helping to support more startups. But the success of a start-up is based on management ability, and it will take time to see which companies have the technology, target market, and team to succeed. Going forward, these teams will be the ones that reveal the real value of robotics, and the resulting impact on jobs.

I think there are two trends for management teams to watch regarding jobs and the emerging personal robotics market. The first is New Efficiencies.  In this case, emerging robotics technology is integrated into emerging markets as part of the overall business model and bottom line performance. In this case, there is a growth trend with respect to a new market, and robotics plays a role in the success of the emerging business solution by automating key activities that keep costs down. The jobs story in this case is usually a good one. New jobs are created as companies succeed. This is what is happening in the warehouse logistics market right now.  Driven by the competition to provide same day delivery, Amazon, Wallmart, Target, etc. are all building out new distribution facilities closer to population areas. Robotics technology (Kiva is a well-known example) is being used to create super efficient product handling.  These new warehouses become a source of jobs, although with different requirements than the traditional warehouse job.

Motorika’s ReoGo.

The second trend, and the one that is more compelling to me, is High-Value Gap Filling. In this case, the robot product works closely with a skilled human operator to augment the operator, performing functions that would not be done easily otherwise. I spent several years introducing a robot to support therapists working with stroke patients to rehabilitate arm function following a stroke. Our product focused exclusively on arm therapy, where it has been shown that intense rehabilitation can lead to better outcomes than were traditionally thought possible. The device is used by patients to perform hundreds of engaged arm movements per therapy session. Therapists know how to perform this type of therapy, but the current treatment landscape, which is very complicated for stroke recovery, rarely has room to just focus on arm movements, and actual arm engagements are in the dozens per session. In this case, the robot helps the therapist help the patient, but in no way could replace the therapist’s knowledge and experience.

A related example of Gap Filling is the use of robotics to address needs in agriculture. The opportunities are in part driven by the lack of available labor resulting from recent changes in immigration policy. It is likely that the labor market in agriculture will be impacted going forward.

Remember also, that the robotics market is where personal computing was back in the 1980s. Few would have been able to predict the types of jobs that would emerge related to personal and mobile computing, social networking, etc. Robotics has the potential to result in similar game-changing new markets, with similar implications on the jobs market.

Only time, and innovative management teams, will tell.

See all the posts in Robohub’s Jobs Focus →

John Dulchinos feature article: “The great equalizer: How robotics frees manufacturers from consolidating in low-wage nations”

These days it is hard to read an article about the future of robots that does not include a reference to jobs. As a pure roboticist, I object to the constant connection between the two, but as a concerned citizen I think it is a worthwhile discussion …

Read more →

Raffaello D’Andrea on “Do robots kill jobs?”

There is no doubt that robots, and automation in general, replace humans in the work-force: all productivity-enhancing tools, by definition, result in a decrease in the number of man-hours required to perform a given task …

Read more →

Mark Tilden on “Do robots kill jobs?”

Robots do kill jobs but they’re crappy jobs, so good riddance.  If you’ve ever had a job you were desperate for the money, but immediately regretted after you got it, then you know what I mean. …

Read more →

We hope you will join the discussion. Feel free to post your comment below.

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

The anxiety occurs when robots have anthropomorphic similarities that people wrongly associate with human ambition.  When a (semi) humanoid takes away the whole menial job that used to be done by a person, there’s an instinctive focus to blame the machine, not the corporation optimizing its bottom line.  Optimizing tasks to reduce costs is a good thing.  It’s just a shame we haven’t kept up with the social reforms needed so people who had those jobs before could find better jobs now.

So the short answer is robot-brained corporations kill jobs.  Robots are just the anthropomorphic patsies that get blamed.

Still, now I have to go and stare worriedly at my toaster.

Read more answers →

See all the posts in Robohub’s Jobs Focus →

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 →