Without serious public debate and policy changes, the path we are taking will lead us to an even more polarized economic reality, with robotic technologies replacing the middle class - in a society even more distant from equal opportunities and economic justice
In the book "Race Against the Machine," Erin Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT present a graph showing productivity, GDP, employment, and median income in the United States from 1953 to 2011. The graph is, as one might expect, from 1953 to the mid-1980s, with all indicators rising together—workers are more productive, companies are making more money, and hiring is increasing as the middle class expands.
And then, during Reagan's term, the bad news comes. First, while productivity and GDP continue to rise, average household income begins to stagnate. This is worrying, as it suggests that corporations are getting richer while workers are no longer benefiting from rising GDP: what happened to the downward diffusion of wealth? A decade later, in the mid-1990s, other paradoxes emerge: employment stabilizes, while GDP and productivity continue to grow even faster.
Overthrow
Brynjolfsson and McAfee argue that these are signs of a huge shift in the dynamics of productivity and employment. Contrary to the popular view that what we need to increase employment is more technological innovation, the authors argue that, on the contrary, technological innovation is one of the forces contributing to these - employment-negative - changes.
Today, the rapid advances in robotics are expected to significantly impact human employment—at least in the long term. New robots will take over advanced industrial production, education, logistics, and customer relations. They will have the ability to select and operate complex equipment, operate excavators, design structures, and even drive tomorrow’s cars.
Robots will not have to work as well as the people they replace. Let's take the example of vending machines - at supermarket checkouts, gas stations, etc.: they make more mistakes than a human and are harder to use, and for these reasons they usually take longer to complete a transaction. They may not work as well as humans, but they do their job. They don't help the consumer, but they save money for the business.
Distancing
It is time not only for economists, but also for “roboticians” like me, to ask how developments in robotics will transform the society of the future. My concern is that, without serious public debate and policy changes, the path we are taking will lead us to an even more polarized economic reality, with robotic technologies replacing the middle class—in a society even more distant from equal opportunities and economic justice. So how do we respond to the impending mass migration of robots into the middle class and the displacement of humans from it? Perhaps it is a good idea to start discussing it now, to understand that the robotic revolution may prove to be more important than the industrial revolution.
Starting to imagine possible future scenarios for middle-class unemployment is a first step toward finding ways to maintain our standard of living in the robotic future that we are about to encounter. Without a doubt, robots can significantly improve our lives, providing everything from smart prosthetic limbs to in-home care for the elderly. It is up to us to start a constructive dialogue about how we can manage the jobs crisis that the advance of robots may bring. If we give it the necessary importance, then we may be able to secure the future of the middle class.
* Professor of Robotics at Carnegie Mellon University. His latest book is called "Robot Futures" and is published by MIT Press.
