There was this great little story in the middle of this article:
There is an ongoing debate that about automation and the number of jobs for humans. One side of the argument states that this is nothing to worry about. Plenty of new, albeit different, jobs will be created in robot manufacturing and maintenance. We will be OK. On the other hand, some argue that the rate of jobs being automated away is higher than the rate of job creation and we will be creating a class of permanently unemployed. I tend to side with this second argument.
Companies make goods and service that eventually bought be people. People need money to buy things. Therefore, people need jobs so that they have money to buy things to live and prosper. So, who indeed is going to buy the Fords?
One idea that is bandied about these days is the old notion of a guaranteed annual income. If society does not have enough work to employ everyone, society i.e. governments and firms has to still provide monies so these folks can live. It is the right humanitarian thing to do. Normally, the executives who run for profit businesses would scoff at such an idea, but lost sales and diminished profits might bring out the liberal side of many conservative executives. How to pay for this, collect taxes, and still have corporate profits? I am not sure that has been worked out as yet. I am not sure if it is even possible with taking us toward a governance style that is more socialist or communist.
I covered this topic in a TEDx speech I gave at North Park University in April of 2017 which you can watch here:
The story goes that a Ford executive once asked, as he showed off new robots to a union leader, “How are you going to collect union dues from these guys?” (“How are going to get them to buy Fords?” the union leader replied.)Both are very good questions and point to an issue that we may have to deal with sooner than we think. As technology advances, we are able to automate more and more jobs. It used to be just the hazardous or tedious jobs and that was “good” automation. But more and more automation in mechanical or IT form is taking over jobs of all kinds both blue and white collar. If costs are reduced, automation is the way to go. So, automation is still good from an economic standpoint. It is “bad,” I suppose, when it is your job that is automated away.
There is an ongoing debate that about automation and the number of jobs for humans. One side of the argument states that this is nothing to worry about. Plenty of new, albeit different, jobs will be created in robot manufacturing and maintenance. We will be OK. On the other hand, some argue that the rate of jobs being automated away is higher than the rate of job creation and we will be creating a class of permanently unemployed. I tend to side with this second argument.
Companies make goods and service that eventually bought be people. People need money to buy things. Therefore, people need jobs so that they have money to buy things to live and prosper. So, who indeed is going to buy the Fords?
One idea that is bandied about these days is the old notion of a guaranteed annual income. If society does not have enough work to employ everyone, society i.e. governments and firms has to still provide monies so these folks can live. It is the right humanitarian thing to do. Normally, the executives who run for profit businesses would scoff at such an idea, but lost sales and diminished profits might bring out the liberal side of many conservative executives. How to pay for this, collect taxes, and still have corporate profits? I am not sure that has been worked out as yet. I am not sure if it is even possible with taking us toward a governance style that is more socialist or communist.
I covered this topic in a TEDx speech I gave at North Park University in April of 2017 which you can watch here: