Defining the Problem ... If there is one?

In case you have not had a chance to see my short scenario describing The Robot Minimum Wage Plan (RMWP) please take a minute to read it to get up to speed on the concepts we are discussing here.

A few of the comments that I have received talk about whether or not the advancement of robotics will or will not actually put people out of work. Here for example is an article on the topic:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-transformation-small-medium-enterprise-rick-huijbregts

A few quotes from the article are typical and worth discussing:

Digitization may challenge established processes, jobs, and companies. But for every job that may fall victim of innovation and digitization, new jobs will be created instead. 

Over 150 years ago we had more than 70% of the population work in the agriculture sector. Today, this is 5% or less. And this shift didn't mean that we have everyone else without a job. In turn, consider new employment that come with startups and digital companies such as Uber. 

At RoboticsTomorrow we have published many articles talking about the same issue and there is a valid argument to agree. In fact to a certain extend I do agree. Skilled workers can probably be retrained to fill the new jobs created by new companies and new technologies. 

Is There a Problem?

I'm just very unsure whether unskilled and under educated workers will be able to cope in new and highly technical workplaces. For example, I think many of the agricultural workers mentioned ended up performing unskilled labor in other fields or assembly line work that did not require special skills. Also, the breadth of the future changes is vast and in my opinion will decimate jobs in many industries almost simultaneously (i.e. within a decade or so). 

Nor do I think that the proportion of unskilled labor to skilled labor can evolve at a pace that would compensate for the disruption. Maybe someone reading this can enlighten us on the historical shift in labor skills.

Lets look at MacDonald's for example, and maybe this will help us decide not only if there is a problem but also give us a broader definition of what a robot is in the context of our scenario. Suppose MacDonald's decides to install kiosks where customers can place their orders, as well as automatic burger makers and dispensers. This is not far fetched at all and points to several somewhat scary job facts:

• Is a kiosk a robot?  I would say in our scenario, yes it is. It is an electronic device which replaces a human being, in this case the order taker.
• The automatic burger maker is also a robot and combined with the dispenser probably replaces another human being.
• A normal MacDonald's could probably reduce its staff by at least 2/3rds and maybe more with these technologies. What industries are there that would create the new jobs for these people, given that if MacDonald's can do this so can every other fast food outlet.
• A new fast food outlet starting from scratch would most likely be based on using robots for as many tasks as possible with available technology. It's business model would only include humans where absolutely necessary to manage the robots.

So, for our discussions, lets take the position that yes, there is going to be a problem. Given that, we should take the engineering approach and spend some time defining the problem before we get too far into finding solutions.

Defining the Problem(s)

1. With the advance of digital technology many jobs done by humans, especially unskilled jobs, will disappear and will not be replaced by jobs requiring the same skill and education levels.
2. Without action by society (business and government) there will be widespread unemployment leading to poverty and unrest.
3. Lack of employment will lead to a shrinking marketplace for goods and services and a widening demand for social services and support. 
4. While retraining will provide a partial solution, it may also lead to a widening of the have / have not gap in society.

I welcome other comments that would help us further define this problem. (just click on the comment link below)

Here are some recent comments to discuss:

Gideon A. MarkenMarch 13, 2017 at 5:58 PM

The idea of a minimum wage which goes into a mysterious pool to benefit all is intriguing but not totally practical because the distribution/use is not fully defined. I agree with the concept of a tax as we levy for all equipment, people employed by an organization. Part of the resolution in this area is really a better definition of AI because it is not really artificial intelligence, it is augmented intelligence which means to be completely effective it is a joint learning process where the robot gains from the individual and the individual gains information, insight from the robot enabling him/her to break from ingrained habit and think about processes and activities in a different way. Ultimately - some will say simplistically - it is a symbiotic relationship that helps the individual do more, better, more efficiently, more effectively. Will there be some displacement? Certainly but the tax can then be used to assist the individual in learning, gaining new skills because most people want to learn, experience and grow and yes they want to have a feeling of self worth and value in their lives. For some the augmented intelligence provided by the robot will provide that permitting them to both grow. In other instances, the technology will have passed them by - such as in the mining industry requiring fewer people to do the task - and they can can gain new skills.

Again, while I agree with this in some cases, it is the unskilled and under educated workers that will need some form of financial assistance more than others because I do not feel that retraining will be enough to bring them into a new, more technological workplace. The question then becomes, what kind of jobs will society create for this sector of its population? In the RMWP scenario I describe a situation where working part time in personal care and service jobs could provide a partial solution but for this to occur, values may need to shift away from pure profit motivations. 

For those who can benefit from retraining the future is brighter than today in my opinion. I doubt that many doing tedious repetitive work would resent learning a more interesting job. But could we extend that to reducing work hours for all so that more people could work with less jobs in the marketplace? 

Mark March 15,2017

Personally, basing the payments on whether the person was displaced by a robot or another society challenge is too complicated.

I believe that we should offer a basic living allowance to anyone (including healthcare). If they don’t want to work, they can get enough money to survive. If they want to stay home, watch TV, play video games and smoke pot all day long, that is fine. It keeps them from getting into fights and committing crimes.   One of the few jobs that robots cannot replace is entertainment. (or I don’t think so). 

If they get bored or want to contribute to society, we provide education so that they can get fun, interesting and challenging jobs in society.

I know many young adults that play (or try to play)  video games 24/7. Why don't we have games that actually provide a society advantaged function – helping to calculate solutions to real world issues…

I think it's important to develop a system that supports capitalism and is not overly socialistic. Paying taxes so the unemployed can play video games will not sell in my opinion. I know I would certainly resent it. Having robots pay into the system however seems to me a palatable solution. My thinking in developing the RMWP scenario is that eventually the system would evolve to cover everybody, but it would need to start with a problem that we could identify and solve and gradually change the thinking of our society while observing the outcomes and changes to the way the marketplace responds. 

OK, that's it for me today. Thanks for listening and please let me know what you think.

-----

Please take a moment and comment with your impressions (just click on the comment link below). Could it work? I’d appreciate 2 points of view. Your first impressions and thoughts (positive or negative) followed by the opposite argument. If the first impression is positive (this could work because) then the second should be a rebuttal to the first (this will never work because).