In the recent presidential election, automation and robotics got a slight reprieve from the accusations that it has been the key driver in job losses in the United States. During the campaign, the conversation shifted, thanks largely to then-candidate Trump\u2019s masterful scapegoating of Mexico and China, while calling out trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership as clear and present threats to U.S. manufacturing.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the administration continues to downplay automation as a factor in the U.S. economy, because that explanation runs against the political policies it hopes to enact under the guise of improving the conditions of America\u2019s workforce. On Friday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin dismissed the prospects of artificial intelligence and automation eroding the workforce. In an interview with Axios<\/a>, Mnuchin said:<\/p>\n \u201cit\u2019s not even on our radar screen\u2026. 50-100 more years\u201d away. \u201cI\u2019m not worried at all\u201d about robots displacing humans in the near future, he said, adding: \u201cIn fact I\u2019m optimistic.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n But even as some politicians look to divert attention from the issue, public focus returned to the evils of automation. The New York Times<\/em> ran a story titled \u201cThe Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It\u2019s Automation,\u201d<\/a> while the Associated Press explained \u201cWhy robots, not trade, are behind so many factory job losses.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0You get the picture. Technology is killing manufacturing jobs.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s truth in all of these reports. Robotics and automation have<\/em> been linked to lost manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and even the most pro-technology industry analysts would have a hard time disputing it. But that simple fact raises some complicated questions.<\/p>\n Are we living in historically unprecedented times for job loss? Or is this part of a cycle that predates even the Industrial Revolution? Is it possible to retrain our workforce for these changes? Or will the gap between educated and non-educated workers only continue to grow?<\/p>\n This exceedingly complex issue has no simple solution, and any attempt by politicians to villainize or sensationalize matters will only serve to further its negative impact. Industry and government alike need to take a long, hard look at the effect of automation on industries as a means of maintaining the United States\u2019 role in manufacturing and innovation, while stemming domestic job loss.<\/p>\n A number of representatives of pro-automation companies and advocacy groups I spoke with used words like \u201cscaremongering\u201d to describe a spate of recent reports that have raised alarm around the role of robotics in job loss. But when pressed, those same organizations will ultimately acknowledge that automation has been a driver of factory job loss in the U.S., at least in the short term.<\/p>\n It\u2019s pretty simple arithmetic, and something we\u2019ve witnessed time and again. A much-cited Ball State University study<\/a> suggests that automation has already proven a major driver of job loss this millennium. The paper notes that the decade between 2000 to 2010 marked the U.S.\u2019s largest decline in manufacturing jobs in its history.<\/p>\n Those numbers are supported in part, by statistics\u00a0from the Bureau of Labor Statistics<\/a>, which notes that manufacturing jobs in the U.S. increased between 1994 (the year NAFTA went into effect) and 2000. After that, however, things look decidedly less rosy, with a loss of five million jobs in the intervening years. In spite of this troubling stat, productivity actually rose, according to Ball State\u2019s\u00a0report.<\/p>\n That study only chalks up 13 percent of job loss to trade during that period, with automation constituting a major portion of that remaining job loss. \u201cIn 1998, the inflation-adjusted output per worker was much lower than it is today,\u201d write the study\u2019s authors, Michael J. Hicks and Srikant Devaraj. \u201cThis is due to a variety of factors, chief among them being the automation and information technology advances absorbed by these sectors over this time period.\u201d<\/p>\n Colin Parris, the vice president of Software Research at GE, is refreshingly straightforward\u00a0when speaking to TechCrunch about the topic. \u201cYes,\u201d he says, matter-of-factly, \u201cthere will be job losses.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s blunt, sure. But it\u2019s refreshing coming from an executive at a company so heavily invested in automation. But Parris\u2019 story, naturally, doesn\u2019t end there. His long-term projections \u2014 and those of his peers in manufacturing \u2014 are actually a fair bit sunnier.<\/p>\n \u201cThe only way to fight [job losses],\u201d Parris continues, \u201cis to train the talent that we have. Because in the future, we have to embrace robotics. It allows us to reduce cost. If I reduce cost, I have more money that I can use for innovation. The more money I have, the more new products I can create. The more products I create, the more workforce I can hire.\u201c<\/p>\n That\u2019s a trend that certainly has historical precedent. Technology has had a major impact on the workforce dating back at least as far as the Industrial Revolution \u2014 when various tasks became more automated and the types of jobs available changed as a result.\u00a0At the turn of the last century, 41 percent of U.S. jobs were in or around agriculture. A century later, the number had plummeted to 1.9 percent<\/a>.<\/p>\n And while technology adoption and its attendant short-term job loss certainly transformed those historical economies, that evolution of work didn\u2019t lead to mass unemployment as much as a transformation of the work being done. Changing times have traditionally closed doors and opened windows, as the old adage goes. As one representative of a major technology firm handily pointed out on background, the number of jobs that have been completely eliminated by automation boil down to one key position. It\u2019s a sentiment backed up in a Boston University study released in late 2015.<\/p>\n \u201c[T]echnology rarely automates major occupations completely,\u201d writes the paper\u2019s author, James E. Bessen. \u201cMany occupations were eliminated for a variety of reasons. In many cases, demand for the occupational services declined (e.g. boardinghouse keepers); in some cases, demand declined because of technological obsolescence (e.g. telegraph operators). This, however, is not the same as automation. In only one case \u2014 elevator operators \u2014 can the decline and disappearance of an occupation be largely attributed to automation.\u201d<\/p>\n So, if you work or live on a floor higher than three, maybe pour one out for\u00a0the poor elevator operator, whose numbers seemed to have peaked<\/a> at around 1950 when 97,000 were registered in the U.S. census and are virtually non-existent today.<\/p>\n If it\u2019s assumed that job automation has and will continue (in the short term, at least) to result in some form of job loss, automation\u2019s defenders point out that many of the jobs that will ultimately be displaced will be jobs that \u201cno one really wants,\u201d or at the very least, positions that employers have difficulty keeping staffed.<\/p>\n \u201cIt might take employees out of what we call the \u2018three Ds,\u2019 a dull, dirty or dangerous job,\u201d says Bob Doyle of the Association for Advancing Automation. But \u201c[it] puts them hopefully in a different position that creates more value to the company,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n
Job loss<\/h2>\n