www射-国产免费一级-欧美福利-亚洲成人福利-成人一区在线观看-亚州成人

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
Comment

Are there enough reasons to worry about automation?

By Christopher A. Pissarides | China Daily | Updated: 2020-01-04 00:00
Share
Share - WeChat

From the Luddite movement in the early 19th century to the writings of prominent economists such as John Maynard Keynes and Wassily Leontief generations later, the prospect of automation has always raised serious concerns about jobs. Keynes and Leontief doubted there would be enough jobs left for workers to do. Today, facing an onrushing wave of digital automation, many share their unease.

The impact of today's digital technologies on the labor market raises three questions. Will there be enough jobs for workers to do? Where will these jobs be? And will the compensation be high enough to avoid an increase in poverty and inequality?

Technological unemployment

The answer to the first question is unequivocal. Historical evidence shows that labor-replacing technological innovation does not lead to long-term changes in employment and unemployment rates in industrial countries. Keynes talked about "technological unemployment", and there is no doubt that in the 1920s and the subsequent Great Depression, one of the biggest causes of unemployment in Britain was the decline of coal and other industries in the face of competition from Germany and the US. Workers' skills and geographic location ruled out quickly redeploying them elsewhere in the economy. But that transitional episode eventually passed.

Fear of technological unemployment persists because it is rooted in uncertainty about new job creation. New machines' capabilities enable us to identify the jobs at risk, but not the jobs yet to emerge. We have to guess by comparing the capabilities of workers and machines, which often tilt the balance in favor of estimates of net job loss.

But we have abundant evidence of human ingenuity in creating new jobs. When Keynes wrote, the service sector in Britain and the US employed about 40 percent of workers. Employment sectors such as health and care and the broader travel and hospitality industries were relatively very small. Today each of those sectors employs more people than manufacturing. As former US president John F. Kennedy put it: "(I)f men have the talent to invent new machines that put men out of work, they have the talent to put those men back to work."

The challenge of new technologies

The challenge all new technologies pose is not that they create too few jobs, but rather that too few workers have the skills to fill them. Just as some jobs benefit from new technologies while others become obsolete, so, too, some skills become more valuable, while others are substitutable.

The automobile boosted the value of engineering skills and decreased the value of horse-breeding skills. Horse breeders had to learn new skills to maintain their incomes. A good sectoral transition for them would have been to the auto production or maintenance sectors. The sectoral bias of new technologies is a challenge that workers take on and eventually master, but not without objections, at least initially.

The jobs threatened in the early stages of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) were routine or relied on processing data. Moving big boxes in warehouses, or loading agricultural produce onto trucks, was easily mechanized. Data-processing jobs could be carried out by AI software; a search engine and a few key words could easily replace a paralegal who searches court records for relevant precedents.

These properties led to the polarization of employment, challenging workers to shift to jobs that were either complimentary to the new technologies, such as computer programming or robotics, or to jobs that could not be programmed, such as management consultancy or nursing care. These jobs were either more skilled and better paid than the routine jobs, or less skilled with lower pay, leading to the hollowing of the middle of the income distribution. In more recent times, improvements in AI render non-routine jobs vulnerable as well.

Flexible labor markets can better adapt to change

The sectoral employment transition is easier where the education system teaches a broad range of skills, rather than encouraging specialization from an early age, and where flexible labor markets have good retraining facilities. Access to finance also is essential in facilitating the transition, enabling startups in the new economy to hire some of the displaced workers.

At the Luohan Academy in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, we investigated the availability of finance through the digital platforms Alibaba and Ant Financial, which use the information in their big data sets in place of collateral to evaluate loan applications. We found that the platform economy makes credit accessible to many more people than the traditional banks can reach.

The third question, about inequality, is more difficult to address. Economics is good at providing unambiguous answers to questions about the efficiency of labor markets. The question of inequality, by contrast, is partly about political choices. The sectoral bias of new technologies means that inequality typically increases when they become available. Those who succeed in taking advantage of them receive rewards above the rest of the workforce.

Lower-skill workers' wages should be raised

The key question, however, should not be whether some people become very rich, but whether the wages of lower-skill people are sufficiently high to avoid poverty. This depends partly on company policy, as competition may not work to raise wages when companies grow very large in their local area. Companies in the digital era have a choice: They can use technology to substitute capital for labor and keep wages low, or use technology for the good of their workers with a view to longer-term profits. In the latter case, workers' well-being benefits more from the new technologies, not necessarily only through higher wages but also through better working and living conditions.

If the new technologies increase economic inequality, but do not increase poverty, some societies may decide not to do anything about it. Aversion to inequality is higher in European countries than in the United States, for example, and a variety of redistributive programs are in place to reduce it. With sufficient support, policies to offset rising inequality are not difficult to devise. The Scandinavian countries have long relied on high taxes to finance extensive social support programs.

Whatever society's attitude to inequality, the outcome to be avoided is poverty (or near-poverty) wages. A mandatory minimum wage or tax inducement to employers to raise low wages may be necessary. The point of technological innovation, after all, is not to give people reason to resist it.

The author is a winner of Nobel Prize for economics and Regius professor of Economics at the London School of Economics.

Project Syndicate

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

 

CAI MENG/CHINA DAILY

 

 

Today's Top News

Editor's picks

Most Viewed

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 欧美特级大片 | 国产成人91一区二区三区 | 日本网址在线观看 | 日韩精品在线免费观看 | 91久久另类重口变态 | 在线高清国产 | 久久香蕉国产线看观看式 | 久久亚洲欧洲日产国码 | 国产欧美一区二区日本加勒比 | 国产精品不卡无毒在线观看 | 成人午夜网 | 视频一区色眯眯视频在线 | 免费黄网大全 | 国产三级香港在线观看 | 91在线一区二区三区 | 九九九免费视频 | 成年人看的黄色片 | 最新色网址| 久久综合一本 | 成人毛片免费网站 | 亚洲第一视频在线观看 | 日韩在线视精品在亚洲 | 午夜精品一区二区三区在线观看 | 免费一级特黄欧美大片久久网 | 亚洲在线日韩 | 国产午夜精品理论片免费观看 | 在线一区国产 | 久草视频在线免费看 | 欧美日韩国产58香蕉在线视频 | 三级视频网站在线观看 | 国产成人精品一区二三区 | 久久国产精品视频一区 | 国内9l视频自拍 | 国产一级特黄aaa大片 | 久久草在线视频播放 | 免费特黄 | 高h原耽肉汁动漫视频 | 视色4setv.com | 美女张开腿让男人桶爽动漫视频 | 国产成人综合在线视频 | 夜夜春夜夜夜夜猛噜噜噜噜噜 |