If we think about troubles faced by people living in the first century, we might assume that fear of technological unemployment (i.e., human workers replaced by machines) was not one of them. However, midway through that first century, during a period of reconstruction in Rome, an inventor proposed the use of an efficient machine to assist laborers in their efforts. Instead of praising the inventor, Rome’s emperor rejected the idea, supposedly claiming Romans needed jobs, not machinery that eliminated them. This and other examples illustrate that the issue is not one born of the twenty-first century.
February 01, 2017 Features
Legal Strategies for Technological Unemployment
By Yvonne A. Stevens
Fast-forward to 2017. Technology and jobs have evolved over the years, with the former inevitably having an impact on the latter. Looking back, despite certain disruptions, this was for the best. However, perhaps it was only so to a certain point because a new kind of technology eventually emerged from earlier forms of life-enhancing technologies. This new technology is intelligent, autonomous (or at least semi-autonomous), and ubiquitous. In accordance with Moore’s Law, whose ongoing reign is nonetheless questioned, it is also evolving very quickly. It permeates almost each and every industry, unlike technologies of the past. This has some economists, scholars, think tanks, and certain workers very worried. The pace and face of technology has resulted in what has been dubbed a “barbell effect” whereby the routine middle-class jobs are all but disappearing, leaving behind only the labor-intensive jobs at one end and the highly specialized at the other.
Even in legal practice, which one would hardly call routine, the effects of technology are obvious—from online legal service providers and law firm practice management software, to predictive algorithms such as those used in flight and recidivism risk assessments by our courts. While technology is certainly changing the way lawyers practice, it is unlikely that the human lawyer’s services will disappear entirely. One might say technology is removing the mundane work from the attorney’s desk, permitting more interesting practice opportunities. But this also ties in with one of the arguments often raised by those who fear very disruptive employment impacts: while technology is eliminating certain duties and creating other prospects, these require “skilling up” and are not available to a majority whose work has been displaced, due to factors such as education, intelligence, skill sets, training, and so on.
Let us just say, for the sake of argument, that technological disruptions will be considerable and most people will be unemployed by the year 2030. What can we do about it? More specifically, what realistic regulatory measures might be put in place to reduce the social and economic impacts on society?
Finding a Solution
Given the many articles published on the topic of technological unemployment, focus should be, and is, shifting from the problem to the solution.
One of the most common proposals is providing citizens with a basic income guarantee.1 There is no one formulation, and proposals vary as to who gets it, the amount, at what age, and so on. The idea is not new, and while it has gained momentum in some European Union countries such as Switzerland and Norway, it was also considered in the United States, particularly in the 1960s, by Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Nixon. The problem is that it is expensive to fund and on its own, in its most basic formulation, is associated with lack of productivity, training, and education, resulting in the eventual decline of society’s prosperity and global competitiveness.
Mandating human work,2 either through legislation or contractual agreement, is often backward thinking in that it results in unnecessary expense (e.g., wages), impedes progress, and has a negative effect.
Perhaps government, instead of mandating employment, could create or subsidize jobs. Focus on socially beneficial areas such as caring for the young and elderly, environmental cleanup and care, innovation, and infrastructure renewal, among others, would be helpful. Yet, funding such programs—from oversight to wages—is problematic and would create a lot of pressure on an already financially taxed U.S. system.
Sharing work or reducing work hours, with regulatory reform, is yet another option. Inevitably, however, income is reduced, potentially forcing an employee to look for additional hours elsewhere, and where benefits are tied to hours worked, they too are lost or reduced. Further, efficiency suffers due to lack of consistency and time spent being caught up to speed. Client relations may be less streamlined and also deteriorate as a result.
Required employment impact statements, similar to the environmental impact statements mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act for actions having a significant effect on the environment, might be a useful tool when it comes to envisioning and developing workplace-related technologies. Nonetheless, this might be too time-consuming, over-paternalistic, and an innovation squelcher.
One of the most popular strategies and arguably one that needs to be a part of any optimal solution involves education and training reform, both as to content and opportunity. When it comes to innovation, education inevitably plays catch-up. Innovation is fast-moving. It may thrive or become obsolete very quickly. Its focus may change, and its impact takes time to surface. With those uncertainties, it is almost impossible for supporting systems to evolve as rapidly. However, with multi-stakeholder engagement, forward-thinking education systems could help ensure individuals are being educated to complement innovation, earning the skill sets necessary to work alongside novel technologies. As well, training and education opportunities should be ongoing, with evolving employer and employee incentives to support life-long learning initiatives, perhaps developed in accordance with years of service.
Malleable incentives, tax or otherwise, and opportunities to compete are also important for small business startups. Rather than being reliant on an employer, an individual could strive for financial independence as opposed to government dependence.
It is worthwhile noting that while the proposed solutions discussed so far may be inadequate if freestanding, they could, in combination, be more successful. It is a question of thinking creatively—precisely the kind of skill that is less amenable to automation in the workplace.
Creativity and changing times have led to the creation of the gig economy. It may have developed out of work-sharing arrangements, to supplement loss of income, or from the need for greater freedom, independence, a break from tradition, technological advances, or a combination of those and other factors. In any event, the technology in this context is both the gig and the connection to the gig: Uber technology is the gig for the driver, and its software connects the passenger to the gig. Uber is a classic example of when modern technology and old systems clash, beginning with Uber’s position that its drivers are contractors, not employees. The distinction has important implications from a driver benefits standpoint and is at the core of a number of lawsuits filed against Uber.3 Airbnb is another example. In Arizona, the governor supported that gig by signing SB 1350 in May 2016, preventing cities from banning short-term home rentals like Airbnb. Whether modernizing outdated job classifications or recognizing and allowing for greater participation in income-earning activities, legislators are in a position to amend and ameliorate what is not working in order to maximize technology-created opportunities. The establishment of a new worker category, sandwiched between an employee and an independent contractor, has been suggested, as have comprehensive labor law reforms at the federal and state levels so that statutes only apply “where they make sense” (i.e., a traditional employer/employee or independent contractor relationship), and barring complete reform, the creation of an exemption for Internet-based worker platforms.4
A couple of MIT authors recently noted that “fortunately, there is no need for policies for a jobless community yet.”5 Nonetheless, one could argue for a need to at least turn one’s mind to the possibility.
Having considered a variety of strategies, the best of anything is often saved for last. The following proposal, while not novel outside the labor framework, has promise within it. The suggestion involves developing an alternative or supplementary reward system. The system could be implemented in several circumstances. For example, it could serve as a way to receive supplemental or luxury goods or services where the basics are free to all citizens as a result of technological efficiency and advancements (similar to a resource-based economy). It could also be applied in the same manner within a basic income guarantee or like framework.
In return for engagement in meaningful, socially beneficial activities, individuals would receive a badge, likely digital, which could be exchanged for or allow one to qualify for particular goods and services. Such a reward system would motivate and recognize a person’s productivity, whether it be caregiving, environmental stewardship, artistry, and so on. In fact, a recent NPR story featured Springfield, Ohio, one of the most devastated economies in the country, whose mission is revival by promoting endeavors such as farmers markets, where individuals can offer artisanal goods and services for sale.6 In a place where old ways and industries have died off and wages are low, there is a new focus on infrastructure, arts, culture, and restoration. In Springfield, there is recognition that such activities have value and provide opportunities to an area besieged by unemployment and drug use and home to a demoralized citizenry.
Naturally, the badge model would need to be legally recognized and valued by society, which requires people believing in it, as is the case with money. But money was not always the method of exchange—before it, there was a barter system. The drawback of bartering is that it is focused on individual exchanges, which are limited, whereas the badge system would recognize broader contributions to society. Further, bartering imposes greater supply and demand concerns and lacks a common measure of value.
Certain industries, including retail and education, in the United States and abroad, are considering and in some cases have already implemented similar systems as reward for work completed or skills achieved—just as the Boy and Girl Scouts have done for years.
Conclusion
While the jury is still out in terms of how profound the threat of mass unemployment due to technological innovation is or may become, having a discussion on solutions is worthwhile so that we are not completely blindsided if and when the biggest wave yet hits. ◆
Endnotes
1. See, e.g., U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network, http://www.usbig.net (last visited Feb. 16, 2017).
2. See, e.g., Daniel Hamermesh, The Wastefulness of New Jersey’s Gas Pumping Restrictions, Freakonomics (July 7, 2011), http://freakonomics.com/2011/07/07/the-wastefulness-of-new-jerseys-gas- pumping-restrictions/.
3. See, e.g., Heather Kelly, Uber’s Never-Ending Stream of Lawsuits, CNN Tech. (Aug. 11, 2016), http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/technology/uber-lawsuits/index.html.
4. Joe Kennedy, Three Paths to Update Labor Law for the Gig Economy, Info. Tech. & Innovation Found. (Apr. 18, 2016), https://www.itif.org/publications/2016/04/18/three-paths-update-labor-law-gig-economy.
5. Andrew McAfee & Erik Brynjolfsson, Human Work in the Robotic Future: Policy for the Age of Automation, Foreign Aff. (July/Aug. 2016), https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-06-13/human-work-robotic-future.
6. Uri Berliner, Springfield, Ohio: A Shrinking City Faces a Tough Economic Future, NPR (Sept. 19, 2016), http://www.npr.org/2016/09/19/493920060/springfield-ohio-a-shrinking-city-faces-a-tough-economic-future.