Technological unemployment

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
File:Pyxis Pharmacy Robot by Nurse Station.JPG
In the 21st century, robots are beginning to perform roles not just in industry, but in the service sector, working as entertainers and carers.

Technological unemployment is the loss of jobs caused by technological change. Such change typically includes the introduction of labour-saving machines or more efficient processes. Historical examples include artisan weavers reduced to poverty after the introduction of mechanised looms. A contemporary example of technological unemployment is the displacement of retail cashiers by self-service tills.

That technological change can cause short-term job losses is widely accepted. The view that it can lead to lasting increases in unemployment has long been controversial. Participants in the technological unemployment debates can be broadly divided into optimists and pessimists. Optimists agree that innovation may be disruptive to jobs in the short term, yet hold that various compensation effects ensure there is never a long term negative impact on jobs. Whereas pessimists contend that at least in some circumstances, new technologies can lead to a lasting decline in the total number of workers in employment. The phrase "technological unemployment" was popularised by Lord Keynes in the 1930s. Yet the issue of machines displacing human labour has been discussed since at least Aristotle's time.

Prior to the 18th century both the elite and common people would generally take the pessimistic view on technological unemployment, at least in cases where the issue arose. Due to generally low unemployment in much of pre-modern history, the topic was rarely a prominent concern. In the 18th century fears over the impact of machinery on jobs intensified with the growth of mass unemployment, especially in Great Britain which was then at the forefront of the Industrial revolution. Yet some economic thinkers began to argue against these fears, claiming that overall innovation would not have negative effects on jobs. These arguments were formalised in the early 19th century by the classical economists. During the second half of the 19th century, it became increasingly apparent that technological progress was benefiting all sections of society, including the working class. Concerns over the negative impact of innovation diminished. The term "Luddite fallacy" was coined to describe the thinking that innovation would have lasting harmful effects on employment.

The view that technology is unlikely to lead to long term unemployment has been repeatedly challenged by a minority of economists. In the early 1800s these included Ricardo himself. There were dozens of economists warning about technological unemployment during brief intensifications of the debate that spiked in the 1930s and 1960s. Especially in Europe, there were further warnings in the closing two decades of the twentieth century, as commentators noted an enduring rise in unemployment suffered by many industrialised nations since the 1970s. Yet a clear majority of both professional economists and the interested general public held the optimistic view through most of the 20th century.

In the second decade of the 21st century, a number of studies have been released suggesting that technological unemployment may be increasing worldwide. Further increases are forecast for the years to come. While many economists and commentators still argue such fears are unfounded, as was widely accepted for most of the previous two centuries, concern over technological unemployment is growing once again.

Issues within the technological unemployment debates

Long term effects on employment

There are more sectors losing jobs than creating jobs. And the general-purpose aspect of software technology means that even the industries and jobs that it creates are not forever.

Lawrence Summers[1]

All participants in the technological employment debates agree that temporary job losses can result from technical innovation. Similarly, there is no dispute that innovation sometimes has positive effects on workers. Disagreement focuses on whether it is possible for innovation to have a lasting negative impact on overall employment. Levels of persistent unemployment can be quantified empirically, but the causes are subject to debate. Optimists accept short term unemployment may be caused by innovation, yet claim that after a while, compensation effects will always create at least as many jobs as were originally destroyed. While this optimistic view has been continually challenged, it was dominant among mainstream economists for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.[2][3]

The concept of structural unemployment, a lasting level of joblessness that does not disappear even at the high point of the business cycle, became popular in the 1960s. For pessimists, technological unemployment is one of the factors driving the wider phenomena of structural unemployment. Since the 1980s, even optimistic economists have increasingly accepted that structural unemployment has indeed risen in advanced economies, but they have tended to blame this on globalisation and offshoring rather than technological change. Others claim a chief cause of the lasting increase in unemployment has been the reluctance of governments to pursue expansionary policies since the displacement of Keynesianism that occurred in the 1970s and early 80s.[2][4][5] In the 21st century, and especially since 2013, pessimists have been arguing with increasing frequency that lasting worldwide technological unemployment is a growing threat.[3][6][7][8]

Compensation effects

John Kay inventor of the Fly Shuttle AD 1753, by Ford Madox Brown, depicting the inventor John Kay kissing his wife goodbye as men carry him away from his home to escape a mob angry about his labour-saving mechanical loom. Compensation effects were not widely understood at this time.

Compensation effects are labour-friendly consequences of innovation which "compensate" workers for job losses initially caused by new technology. In the 1820s, several compensation effects were described by Say in response to Ricardo's statement that long term technological unemployment could occur. Soon after, a whole system of effects was developed by Ramsey McCulloch. The system was labelled "compensation theory" by Marx, who proceeded to attack the ideas, arguing that none of the effects were guaranteed to operate. Disagreement over the effectiveness of compensation effects has remained a central part of academic debates on technological unemployment ever since.[5][9]

Compensation effects include:
1) By new machines. (The labour needed to build the new equipment that applied innovation requires.)
2) By new investments. (Enabled by the cost savings and therefore increased profits from the new technology.)
3) By changes in wages. (In cases where unemployment does occur, this can cause a lowering of wages, thus allowing more workers to be re-employed at the now lower cost. On the other hand, sometimes workers will enjoy wage increases as their profitability rises. This leads to increased income and therefore increased spending, which in turn encourages job creation.)
4) By lower prices. (Which then lead to more demand, and therefore more employment.)
5) By new products. (Where innovation directly creates new jobs.)

The "by new machines" effect is now rarely discussed by economists; it is often accepted that Marx successfully refuted it.[5] Even pessimists often concede that product innovation associated with the "by new products" effect can sometimes have a positive effect on employment. An important distinction can be drawn between 'process' and 'product' innovations. [note 1] The extent to which the other effects are successful in compensating the workforce for job losses has been extensively debated throughout the history of modern economics; the issue is still not resolved.[5][10]

Many economists now pessimistic about technological unemployment accept that compensation effects did largely operate as the optimists claimed through most of the 19th and 20th century. Yet they hold that the advent of computerisation means that compensation effects are now less effective. An early example of this argument was made by Wassily Leontief in 1983. He conceded that after some disruption, the advance of mechanization during the industrial revolution actually increased the demand for labour as well as increasing pay due to effects that flow from increased productivity. While early machines lowered the demand for muscle power, they were unintelligent and needed large armies of human operators to remain productive. Yet since the introduction of computers into the workplace, there is now less need not just for muscle power but also for human brain power. Hence even as productivity continues to rise, the lower demand for human labour may mean less pay and employment.[5][7][11]

The Luddite fallacy

If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries

Alex Tabarrok[12]

The term "Luddite fallacy" is sometimes used to express the view that those concerned about long term technological unemployment are committing a fallacy, as they fail to account for compensation effects. People who use the term typically expect that technological progress will have no long term impact on employment levels, and eventually will raise wages for all workers, because progress helps to increase the overall wealth of society. The term is based on the early 19th century example of the Luddites. During the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, the dominant view among economists has been that belief in long term technological unemployment was indeed a fallacy. More recently, there has been increased support for the view that the so-called fallacy may after all be correct.[3][13][14]

There are two underlying premises for why long-term difficulty could develop. The one that has traditionally been ascribed to the Luddites (whether or not it is a truly accurate summary of their thinking) is a fallacious one in which there is a finite amount of work that could exist, a "lump of labour", such that if machines do that work, there can be no other work left for humans to do. This is called the lump of labour fallacy. However, the other premise is that it is possible for long-term difficulty to arise that has nothing to do with any lump of labour. In this view, the amount of work that can exist is infinite, but (1) machines can do most of the "easy" work, (2) the definition of what is "easy" expands as information technology progresses, and (3) the work that lies beyond "easy" (the work that requires more skill, talent, knowledge, and insightful connections between pieces of knowledge) may require greater cognitive faculties than most humans are able to supply, as point 2 continually advances. This latter view is the one supported by most modern advocates of the possibility of long-term, systemic technological unemployment.

Skill levels and technological unemployment

A common view among those discussing the effect of innovation on the labour market has been that it mainly hurts those with low skills, while often benefiting skilled workers. According to scholars such as Lawrence F. Katz, this may have been true for much of the twentieth century, yet in the 19th century, innovations in the workplace largely displaced costly skilled artisans, and generally benefited the low skilled. While 21st century innovation has been replacing some unskilled work, other low skilled occupations remain resistant to automation, while white collar work requiring intermediate skills is increasingly being performed by autonomous computer programs.[15] [16] [17]

Some recent studies however, such as a 2015 paper by Georg Graetz and Guy Michaels, found that at least in the area they studied - the impact of industrial robots - innovation is boosting pay for highly skilled workers while having a more negative impact on those with low to medium skills.[18] A 2015 report by Carl Benedikt Frey, Michael Osborne and Citi Research, agreed that innovation had been disruptive mostly to middle skilled jobs, yet predicted that in the next ten years the impact of automation would fall most heavily on those with low skills.[19]

Geoff Colvin at Forbes argued that predictions on the kind of work a computer will never be able to do have proven inaccurate. A better approach to anticipate the skills on which humans will provide value would be to find out activities where we will insist that humans remain accountable for important decisions, such as with judges, CEOs and government leaders, or where human nature requires to satisfy deep interpersonal needs, even if those task could be automated.[20]


Pre 16th Century

Roman emperor Vespasian - he once refused an invention to enable low cost transportation of heavy goods, saying "You must allow my poor hauliers to earn their bread." [21]

According to author Gregory Woirol, the phenomena of technological unemployment is likely to have existed since at least the invention of the wheel.[22] Ancient societies had various methods for relieving the poverty of those unable to support themselves with their own labour. Ancient China and Ancient Egypt may have had various centrally run relief programmes in response to technological unemployment dating back to at least the second millennium BC.[23] Ancient Hebrews and adherents of the anciet Vedic religion had decentralised responses where aiding the poor was encouraged by their faiths.[23] In Ancient Greece, large numbers of free labourers could find themselves unemployed due to both the effects of ancient labour saving technology and to competition from slaves ("machines of flesh and blood" [24]) . Sometimes these unemployed workers would starve to death or were forced into slavery themselves, though in other cases they were supported by handouts. Pericles responded to perceived technological unemployment by launching public works programmes to provide paid work to the jobless. Conservatives criticised Pericle's programmes for wasting public money, but were defeated.[25]

Perhaps the earliest example of a scholar discussing the phenomena of technological unemployment occurs with Aristotle, who speculated in Book One of Politics that if machines could become sufficiently advanced, there would be no more need for human labour.[26]

Similar to the Greeks, Ancient Romans, responded to the problem of technological unemployment by relieving poverty with handouts. Several hundred thousand families were sometimes supported like this at once.[23] Less often, jobs were directly created with public works programmes, such as those launched by the Gracchi. Various emperors even went as far as to refuse or ban labour saving innovations.[27][28] Labour shortages began to develop in the Roman empire towards the end of the second century AD, and from this point mass unemployment in Europe appears to have largely receded for over a millennium.[29]

The medieval and early renaissance period saw the widespread adoption of newly invented technologies as well as older ones which had been conceived yet barely used in the Classical era.[30] Mass unemployment began to reappear in Europe in the 15th century, partly as a result of population growth, and partly due to changes in the availability of land for subsistence farming caused by early enclosures.[31] As a result of the threat of unemployment, there was less tolerance for disruptive new technologies. European authorities would often side with groups representing subsections of the working population, such as Guilds, banning new technologies and sometimes even executing those who tried to promote or trade in them.[32]

16th to 18th century

Elizabeth I who refused to patent a knitting machine invented by William Lee, saying "Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring them to ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars."

In Great Britain, the ruling elite began to take a less restrictive approach to innovation somewhat earlier than in much of continental Europe, which has been cited as a possible reason for Britain's early lead in driving the Industrial revolution.[33] Yet concern over the impact of innovation on employment remained strong through the 16th and early 17th century. A famous example of new technology being refused occurred when the inventor William Lee invited Queen Elizabeth I to view a labour saving knitting machine. The Queen declined to issue a patent on the grounds that the technology might cause unemployment among textile workers. After moving to France and also failing to achieve success in promoting his invention, Lee returned to England but was again refused by Elizabeth's successor James I for the same reason.[7]

Especially after the Glorious Revolution, authorities became less sympathetic to workers concerns about losing their jobs due to innovation. An increasingly influential strand of Mercantalist thought held that introducing labour saving technology would actually reduce unemployment, as it would allow British firms to increase their market share against foreign competition. From the early 18th century workers could no longer rely on support from the authorities against the perceived threat of technological unemployment. They would sometimes take direct action, such as machine breaking, in attempts to protect themselves from disruptive innovation. Schumpeter notes that as the 18th century progressed, thinkers would raise the alarm about technological unemployment with increasing frequency, with von Justi being a prominent example.[34] Yet Schumpeter also notes that the prevailing view among the elite solidified on the position that technological unemployment would not be a long term problem.[7][31]

19th century

It was only in the 19th century that debates over technological unemployment became intense, especially in Great Britain where many economic thinkers of the time were concentrated. Building on the work of Dean Tucker and Adam Smith, political economists began to create what would become the modern discipline of economics. [note 2] While rejecting much of mercantilism, members of the new discipline largely agreed that technological unemployment would not be an enduring problem. In the first few decades of the 19th century, several prominent political economists did however argue against the optimistic view, claiming that innovation could cause long term unemployment. These included Sismondi,[35] Malthus , J S Mill, and from 1821, Ricardo himself.[36] As arguably the most respected political economist of his age, Ricardo's view was challenging to others in the discipline. The first major economist to respond was Jean-Baptiste Say, who argued that no one would introduce machinery if they were going to reduce the amount of product,[note 3] and that as Say's Law states that supply creates its own demand, any displaced workers would automatically find work elsewhere once the market had had time to adjust.[37] Ramsey McCulloch expanded and formalised Say's optimistic views on technological unemployment, and was supported by others such as Charles Babbage , Nassau Senior and many other lesser known political economists. Towards the middle of the 19th century, Karl Marx joined the debates. Building on the work of Ricardo and Mill, Marx went much further, presenting a deeply pessimistic view of technological unemployment. Yet while Marx attracted many followers and founded an enduring school of thought, he had relatively little impact on mainstream economics. By the 1870s, at least in Great Britain, technological unemployment faded both as a popular concern and as an issue for academic debate. It had become increasingly apparent that innovation was increasing prosperity for all sections of British society, including the working class. As the classical school of thought gave way to Neoclassical economics, mainstream thinking was tightened to take into account and refute the pessimistic arguments of Mill and Ricardo.[38]

20th century

Critics of the view that innovation causes lasting unemployment argue that technology is used by workers and does not replace them on a large scale.

For the first two decades of the 20th century, mass unemployment was not the major problem it had been in the first half of the 19th. While the Marxist school and a few other thinkers still challenged the optimistic view, technological unemployment was not a significant concern for mainstream economic thinking until the mid to late 1920s. In the 1920s mass unemployment re-emerged as a pressing issue within Europe. At this time the U.S. was generally more prosperous, but even there urban unemployment had begun to increase from 1927. Rural American workers had been suffering job losses from the start of the 1920s; many had been displaced by improved agricultural technology, such as the tractor. The centre of gravity for economic debates had by this time moved from Great Britain to the United States, and it was here that the 20th centuries two great periods of debate over technological unemployment largely occurred.[39]

The peak periods for the two debates were in the 1930s and the 1960s. According to economic historian Gregory R Woirol, the two episodes share several similarities.[40] In both cases academic debates were preceded by an outbreak of popular concern, sparked by recent rises in unemployment. In both cases the debates were not conclusively settled, but faded away as unemployment was reduced by an outbreak of war - WWII for the debate of the 1930s, and the Vietnam war for the 1960s episodes. In both cases, the debates were conducted within the prevailing paradigm at the time, with little reference to earlier thought. In the 1930s, optimists based their arguments largely on neo-classical beliefs in the self-correcting power of markets to automatically reduce any short term unemployment via compensation effects. In the 1960s, faith in compensation effects was less strong, but the mainstream Keynesian economists of the time largely believed government intervention would be able to counter any persistent technological unemployment that was not cleared by market forces. Another similarity was the publication of a major Federal study towards the end of each episode, which broadly found that long term technological unemployment was not occurring (though the studies did agree innovation was a major factor in the short term displacement of workers, and advised government action to provide assistance.) [note 4][40]

As the golden age of capitalism came to a close in the 1970s, unemployment once again rose, and this time generally remained relatively high for the rest of the century, across most advanced economies. Several economists once again argued that this may be due to innovation, with perhaps the most prominent being Paul Samuelson.[41] A number of popular works warning of technological unemployment were also published. These included James S. Albus's 1976 book titled Peoples' Capitalism: The Economics of the Robot Revolution;[42][43] David F. Noble with works published in 1984 [44] and 1993;[45] Jeremy Rifkin and his 1995 book The End of Work; [46] and the 1996 book The Global Trap [47] In general, the closing decades of the 20th century saw much more concern expressed over technological unemployment in Europe, compared with the U.S.[48] For the most part, other than the during the periods of intense debate in the 1930s and 60s, the consensus in the 20th century among both professional economists and the general public remained that technology does not cause long term joblessness.[49]

21st century

There is a prevailing opinion that we are in an era of technological unemployment – that technology is increasingly making skilled workers obsolete.

Prof. Mark MacCarthy (2014)[50]

The general consensus that innovation does not cause long-term unemployment held strong for the first decade of the 21st century, though it continued to be challenged by a number of academic works,[5][10] and by popular works such as Marshall Brain's Robotic Nation [51] and Martin Ford's The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future.[52]

Concern about technological unemployment grew in 2013, due in part to a number of studies predicting substantially increased technological unemployment in forthcoming decades, and empirical evidence that in certain sectors, employment is falling worldwide despite rising output, thus discounting globalisation and offshoring as the only causes of increasing unemployment.[6][7][53]

In 2013, professor Nick Bloom of Stanford University stated there had recently been a major change of heart concerning technological unemployment among his fellow economists.[54] In 2014 the Financial Times reported that the impact of innovation on jobs has been a dominant theme in recent economic discussion.[55] According to the academic and former politician Michael Ignatieff writing in 2014, questions concerning the effects of technological change have been "haunting democratic politics everywhere".[56] Concerns have included evidence showing worldwide falls in employment across sectors such as manufacturing; falls in pay for low and medium skilled workers stretching back several decades even as productivity continues to rise; the increase in often precarious platform mediated employment; and the occurrence of "jobless recoveries" after recent recessions. The 21st century has seen a variety of skilled tasks partially taken over by machines, including translation, legal research and even low level journalism. Care work, entertainment, and other tasks requiring empathy, previously thought safe from automation, have also begun to be performed by robots.[6][7][57][58][59][60]

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Harvard economics professor Lawrence Summers stated in 2014 that he no longer believed automation would always create new jobs and that "This isn’t some hypothetical future possibility. This is something that’s emerging before us right now." [note 5][1][61][62] While himself an optimist about technological unemployment, professor Mark MacCarthy stated in the fall of 2014 that it is now the "prevailing opinion" that the era of technological unemployment has arrived.[50]

At the 2014 Davos meeting, Thomas Friedman reported that the link between technology and unemployment seemed to have been the dominant theme of that years discussions. A survey at Davos 2014 found that 80% of 147 respondents agreed that technology was driving jobless growth.[63] At the 2015 Davos, Gillian Tett found that almost all delegates attending a discussion on inequality and technology expected an increase in inequality over the next five years, and gives the reason for this as the technological displacement of jobs.[64] 2015 saw Martin Ford win the Financial Times and McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award for his Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future, and saw the first world summit on technological unemployment, held in New York. In late 2015, further warnings of potential worsening for technological unemployment came from Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's chief economist, and from Ignazio Visco , the govenor of the Bank of Italy. [65] [66]

Other economists however remain optimistic about the prospects to avoid long term technological unemployment. In 2014, Pew Research canvassed 1,896 technology professionals and economists and found a split of opinion: 48 percent of respondents believed that new technologies would displace more jobs than they would create by the year 2025, while 52 percent maintained that they would not.[67] Not all recent empirical studies have found evidence to support the pessimistic view of technological unemployment. A study released in 2015, examining the impact of industrial robots in 17 countries between 1993 and 2007, found no overall reduction in employment was caused by the robots, and that there was a slight increase in overall wages.[18] Economics professor Bruce Chapman from Australian National University has advised that studies such as Frey and Osbourne's tend to overstate the probability of future job losses, as they don't account for new employment likely to be created, due to technology, in what are currently unknown areas.[68]

Research by the Oxford Martin School showed that employees engaged in "tasks following well-defined procedures that can easily be performed by sophisticated algorithms" are at risk of displacement. The study, published in 2013, shows that automation can affect both skilled and unskilled work and both high and low-paying occupations; however, low-paid physical occupations are most at risk.[7] However, according to a study published in McKinsey Quarterly[69] in 2015 the impact of computerization in most cases is not replacement of employees but automation of portions of the tasks they perform.[70]


Banning/refusing innovation

"What I object to, is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labour-saving machinery. Men go on 'saving labour', till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation." - Gandhi , 1924.[71]

Historically, innovations were sometimes banned due to concerns about their impact on employment. Since the development of modern economics however, this option has generally not even been considered as a solution, at least not for the advanced economies. Even commentators who are pessimistic about long term technological unemployment invariably consider innovation to be an overall benefit to society, with JS Mill being perhaps the only prominent western political economist to have suggested prohibiting the use of technology as a possible solution to unemployment.[9]

Gandhian economics called for a delay in the uptake of labour saving machines until unemployment was alleviated, however this advice was largely rejected by Nehru who was to become prime minister once India achieved her independence. The policy of slowing the introduction of innovation so as to avoid technological unemployment was however implemented in the 20th Century within China under Mao's administration.[72][73][74]

Welfare payments

The use of various forms of subsidies and hand outs has often been accepted as a solution to technological unemployment even by conservatives and by those who are optimistic about the long term effect on jobs. Welfare programmes have historically tended to be more durable once established, compared with other solutions to unemployment such as directly creating jobs with public works. Despite being the first person to create a formal system describing compensation effects, Ramsey McCulloch and most other classical economists advocated government aid for those suffering from technological unemployment, as they understood that market adjustment to new technology was not instantaneous, and that those displaced by labour-saving technology would not always be able to immediately obtain alternative employment through their own efforts.[9]

Basic income

Several commentators have argued that traditional forms of welfare payment may be inadequate as a response to the future challenges posed by technological unemployment, and have suggested a basic income as an alternative. People advocating some form of basic income as a solution to technological unemployment include Martin Ford, [75] Erik Brynjolfsson,[55] Robert Reich and Guy Standing. Reich has gone as far as to say the introduction of a basic income, perhaps implemented as a negative income tax is "almost inevitable",[76] while Standing has said he considers that a basic income is becoming "politically essential".[77] Since late 2015, new basic income pilots have been announced in Finland, the Netherlands, and Canada. Further recent advocacy for basic income has arisen from a number of technology entrepeneurs, the most prominent being Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator[78]

Skepticism about basic income includes both right and left elements, and proposals for different forms of it have come from all segments of the spectrum. For example, while the best-known proposed forms (with taxation and distribution) are usually thought of as left-leaning ideas that right-leaning people try to defend against, other forms have been proposed even by libertarians, such as von Hayek and Friedman. Republican president Nixon's Family Assistance Plan (FAP) of 1969, which had much in common with basic income, passed in the House but was defeated in the Senate.[79]

One objection to basic income is that it could be a disincentive to work, but evidence from older pilots in India, Africa, and Canada indicates that this does not happen and that a basic income encourages low-level entrepreneurship and more productive, collaborative work. Another objection is that funding it sustainably is a huge challenge. While new revenue-raising ideas have been proposed such as Martin Ford's wage recapture tax, how to fund a generous basic income remains a debated question, and skeptics have dismissed it as utopian. Even from a progressive viewpoint, there are concerns that a basic income set too low may not help the economically vulnerable, especially if financed largely from cuts to other forms of welfare.[77][80][81][82]

To better address both the funding concerns and concerns about government control, one alternative model is that the cost and control would be distributed across the private sector instead of the public sector. Companies across the economy would be required to employ humans, but the job descriptions would be left to private innovation, and individuals would have to compete to be hired and retained. This would be a for-profit sector analog of basic income, that is, a market-based form of basic income. Another option for a market-based form has been proposed by the Center for Economic and Social Justice (CESJ) as part of "a Just Third Way" (a Third Way with greater justice) through widely distributed power and liberty. Called the Capital Homestead Act,[83] it is reminiscent of James S. Albus's Peoples' Capitalism[42][43] in that money creation and securities ownership are widely and directly distributed to individuals rather than flowing through, or being concentrated in, centralized or elite mechanisms.


Improved availability to quality education, including skills training for adults, is a solution that in principle at least is not opposed by any side of the political spectrum, and welcomed even by those who are optimistic about long term technological employment. Improved education paid for by government tends to be especially popular with industry. However, several academics have argued that improved education alone will not be sufficient to solve technological unemployment, pointing to recent declines in the demand for many intermediate skills, and suggesting that not everyone is capable in becoming proficient in the most advanced skills.[15][16][17] Kim Taipale has said that "The era of bell curve distributions that supported a bulging social middle class is over... Education per se is not going to make up the difference."[84] while back in 2011 Paul Krugman argued that better education would be an insufficient solution to technological unemployment.[85]

Public works

Programmes of Public works have traditionally been used as way for governments to directly boost employment, though this has often been opposed by some, but not all, conservatives. Jean-Baptiste Say, although generally associated with free market economics, advised that public works could be a solution to technological unemployment.[86] Some commentators, such as professor Mathew Forstater, have advised that public works and guaranteed jobs in the public sector may be the ideal solution to technological unemployment, as unlike welfare or guaranteed income schemes they provide people with the social recognition and meaningful engagement that comes with work.[87][88]

For less developed economies, public works may be an easier to administrate solution compared to universal welfare programmes.[11] As of 2015, calls for public works in the advanced economies have been less frequent even from progressives, due to concerns about sovereign debt. A partial exception is for spending on infrastructure, which has been recommended as a solution to technological unemployment even by economists previously associated with a neoliberal agenda, such as Larry Summers.[89]

Shorter working hours

In 1870, the average American worker clocked up about 75 hours per week. Just prior to WWII working hours had fallen to about 42 per week, and the fall was similar in other advanced economies. According to Wassily Leontief, this was a voluntary increase in technological unemployment. The reduction in working hours helped share out available work, and was favoured by workers who were happy to reduce hours to gain extra leisure, as innovation was at the time generally helping to increase their rates of pay.[11]

Further reductions in working hours have been proposed as a possible solution to unemployment by economists including John R. Commons, Lord Keynes and Luigi Pasinetti. Yet once working hours have reached about 40 hours per week, workers have been less enthusiastic about further reductions, both to prevent loss of income and as many value engaging in work for its own sake. Generally 20th century economists had argued against further reductions as a solution to unemployment, saying it reflects a Lump of labour fallacy.[90] In 2014, Google’s co-founder, Larry Page, suggested a four-day workweek, so as technology continues to displace jobs, more people can find employment.[61][91][92]

Broadening the ownership of technological assets

Several solutions have been proposed which don't fall easily into the traditional left-right political spectrum. This includes broadening the ownership of robots and other productive capital assets. Enlarging the ownership of technologies has been advocated by folk including James S. Albus [42][93] John Lanchester,[94] Richard B. Freeman,[81] and Noah Smith.[95] Jaron Lanier has proposed a somewhat similar solution: a mechanism where ordinary people receive "nano payments" for the big data they generate by their regular surfing and other aspects of their online presence.[96]


The threat of technological unemployment has occasionally been used by free market economists as a justification for supply side reforms, to make it easier for employers to hire and fire workers. Conversely, it has also been used as a reason to justify an increase in employee protection.[4][97]

Economists including Larry Summers have advised a package of measures may be needed. He advised vigorous cooperative efforts to address the "myriad devices" - such as tax havens, bank secrecy, money laundering, and regulatory arbitrage - which enable the holders of great wealth to avoid paying taxes, and to make it more difficult to accumulate great fortunes without requiring "great social contributions" in return. Summers suggested more vigorous enforcement of anti-monopoly laws; reductions in "excessive" protection for intellectual property; greater encouragement of profit-sharing schemes that may benefit workers and give them a stake in wealth accumulation; strengthening of collective bargaining arrangements; improvements in corporate governance; strengthening of financial regulation to eliminate subsidies to financial activity; easing of land-use restrictions that may cause estates to keep rising in value; better training for young people and retraining for displaced workers; and increased public and private investment in infrastructure development, such as energy production and transportation.[1][61][62]

Michael Spence has advised that responding to the future impact of technology will require a detailed understanding of the global forces and flows technology has set in motion. Adapting to them "will require shifts in mindsets, policies, investments (especially in human capital), and quite possibly models of employment and distribution." [note 6][98]

Since the publication of their 2011 book Race Against The Machine, MIT professors Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson have been prominent among those raising concern about technological unemployment. The two professors remain relatively optimistic however, stating "the key to winning the race is not to compete against machines but to compete with machines."[99][100][101][102][103][104][105]

See also



  1. Labour-displacing technologies can be classified under the headings of mechanization, automation, and process improvement. The first two fundamentally involve transferring tasks from humans to machines. The third often involves the elimination of tasks altogether. The common theme of all three is that tasks are removed from the workforce, decreasing employment. In practice, the categories often overlap: a process improvement can include an automating or mechanizing achievement. The line between mechanization and automation is also subjective, as sometimes mechanization can involve sufficient control to be viewed as part of automation.
  2. Smith did not directly address the problem of technological unemployment, but the Dean had, saying in 1757 that in the long term, the introduction of machinery would allow more employment than would have been possible without them.
  3. Typically the introduction of machinery would both increase output and lower cost per unit.
  4. In the 1930s, this study was Unemployment and technological change(Report no. G-70, 1940) by Corrington Calhoun Gill of the 'National Research Project on Reemployment Opportunities and Recent changes in Industrial Techniques'. It should be noted that some earlier Federal reports took a pessimistic view of technological unemployment, e.g. Memorandum on Technological Unemployment (1933) by Ewan Clague Bureau of Labor Statistics. Some authorities - e.g. Udo Sautter in Chpt 5 of Three Cheers for the Unemployed: Government and Unemployment Before the New Deal (Cambridge University Press, 1991) - say that in the early 1930s there was near consensus among US experts that technological unemployment was a major problem. Other's though like Bruce Bartlett in Is Industrial Innovation Destroying Jobs (Cato Journal 1984) argue that most economists remained optimistic even during the 1930s. In the 1960s episode, the major Federal study that bookmarked the end of the period of intense debate was Technology and the American economy (1966) by the 'National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress' established by president Lyndon Jonhson in 1964
  5. Other recent statements by Summers include warnings on the "devastating consequences" for those who perform routine tasks arising from robots, 3-D printing, artificial intelligence, and similar technologies. In his view, "already there are more American men on disability insurance than doing production work in manufacturing. And the trends are all in the wrong direction, particularly for the less skilled, as the capacity of capital embodying artificial intelligence to replace white-collar as well as blue-collar work will increase rapidly in the years ahead." Summers has also said that "[T]here are many reasons to think the software revolution will be even more profound than the agricultural revolution. This time around, change will come faster and affect a much larger share of the economy. [...] [T]here are more sectors losing jobs than creating jobs. And the general-purpose aspect of software technology means that even the industries and jobs that it creates are not forever. [...] If current trends continue, it could well be that a generation from now a quarter of middle-aged men will be out of work at any given moment."
  6. Spence also wrote that "Now comes a ... powerful, wave of digital technology that is replacing labor in increasingly complex tasks. This process of labor substitution and disintermediation has been underway for some time in service sectors – think of ATMs, online banking, enterprise resource planning, customer relationship management, mobile payment systems, and much more. This revolution is spreading to the production of goods, where robots and 3D printing are displacing labor." In his view, the vast majority of the cost of digital technologies comes at the start, in the design of hardware (e.g. sensors) and, more important, in creating the software that enables machines to carry out various tasks. "Once this is achieved, the marginal cost of the hardware is relatively low (and declines as scale rises), and the marginal cost of replicating the software is essentially zero. With a huge potential global market to amortize the upfront fixed costs of design and testing, the incentives to invest [in digital technologies] are compelling." Spence believes that, unlike prior digital technologies, which drove firms to deploy underutilized pools of valuable labor around the world, the motivating force in the current wave of digital technologies "is cost reduction via the replacement of labor." For example, as the cost of 3D printing technology declines, it is "easy to imagine" that production may become "extremely" local and customized. Moreover, production may occur in response to actual demand, not anticipated or forecast demand. "Meanwhile, the impact of robotics ... is not confined to production. Though self-driving cars and drones are the most attention-getting examples, the impact on logistics is no less transformative. Computers and robotic cranes that schedule and move containers around and load ships now control the Port of Singapore, one of the most efficient in the world." Spence believes that labor, no matter how inexpensive, will become a less important asset for growth and employment expansion, with labor-intensive, process-oriented manufacturing becoming less effective, and that re-localization will appear globally. In his view, production will not disappear, but it will be less labor-intensive, and all countries will eventually need to rebuild their growth models around digital technologies and the human capital supporting their deployment and expansion.


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Lawrence H. Summers (7 July 2014). "Lawrence H. Summers on the Economic Challenge of the Future: Jobs". Retrieved 22 August 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  2. 2.0 2.1 Woirol 1996, pp. 77 - 90
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Paul krugman (12 June 2013). "Sympathy for the Luddites". New York Times. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  4. 4.0 4.1 Sergio Cesaratto , Antonella Stirati , Franklin Serrano (October 2001). "Technical Change, Effective Demand, and Employment". Center for Full Employment And Price Stability. Retrieved 14 July 2015.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Marco Vivarelli (January 2012). "Innovation, Employment and Skills in Advanced and Developing Countries: A Survey of the Literature" (PDF). Institute for the Study of Labor. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 Richard Waters (3 March 2014). "Technology: Rise of the replicants" ((registration required)). Financial Times. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne (17 September 2013). "THE FUTURE OF EMPLOYMENT: HOW SUSCEPTIBLE ARE JOBS TO COMPUTERISATION" (PDF). Oxford University, Oxford Martin School. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  8. On the other hand, from a more positive perspective, some have argued that technological change will alter the structure of an organization in the sense that those in management roles will increasingly become more specialized to those roles as technology that assists collaboration and workflow management allows employees to manage themselves. The typical management role will, as a result, change to allow managers to concentrate on the task of supporting employees and improving their performance thus allowing them to add more, rather than less, value.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Blaug 1997, p182
  10. 10.0 10.1 Marco Vivarelli (February 2007). "Innovation and Employment: : A Survey" (PDF). Institute for the Study of Labor. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Wassily Leontief (September 1983). "Technological Advance, Economic Growth, and the Distribution of Income". Population and Development Review. 9(3): 403–410. doi:10.2307/1973315.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  12. Tabarrok, Alex (31 December 2003). "Productivity and unemployment". Marginal Revolution. Retrieved 11 March 2007.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  13. Ford 2009, Chpt 3, 'The Luddite Fallacy'.
  14. Lord Skidelsky (12 June 2013). "Death to Machines?". Project Syndicate. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  15. 15.0 15.1 Lawrence F. Katz, Robert A. Margo (February 2013). "Technical change and the relative demand for skilled labor: The united states in historical perspective". National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  16. 16.0 16.1 David H. Autor, David Dorn (August 2013). "The growth of low skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market". The American Economic Review. 103(5): 1553–97.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  17. 17.0 17.1 Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, Benjamin M. Sand (March 2013). "The Great Reversal in the Demand for Skill and Cognitive Tasks". National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 14 July 2015.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  18. 18.0 18.1 Georg Graetz, Guy Michaels (March 2015). "Robots at Work". Centre for Economic Policy Research. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  19. Carl Benedikt Frey , Michael Osborne and Citi Research (February 2015). "TECHNOLOGY AT WORK : The Future of Innovation and Employment" (PDF). Oxford Martin School. Retrieved 4 November 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  20. "Humans are underrated". Fortune. Retrieved 26 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  21. See book eight, chapt XVIII of Suetonius's The Twelve Caesars.
  22. Woirol 1996, p. 17
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 "Relief". The San Bernardino County Sun. California. 3 March 1940. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  24. Forbes 1932, p2
  25. Forbes 1932, pp24 -30
  26. Campa, Riccardo (February 2014). "Technological Growth and Unemployment: A Global Scenario Analysis". Journal of Evolution and Technology. ISSN 1541-0099.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  27. Forbes 1993, chapter 2
  28. Forbes 1932, passim, see esp. pp. 49 - 53
  29. Forbes 1932, pp147 -150
  30. Roberto Sabatino Lopez (1976). "Chpt. 2,3". The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 950-1350. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521290465.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  31. 31.0 31.1 Schumpeter 1987, Chpt 6
  32. On occasion these executions were carried out with methods normally reserved for only the worst criminals, for example on a single occasion in the south of France, 58 people were broken on the Catherine wheel for selling forbidden goods. See Chpt 1 of The Worldly Philosophers.
  33. E.g by Sir John Habakkuk in American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century (1962), Cambridge University Press - Habakkuk also went on to say that due to labour shortages, compared with their British counterparts there was far less resistance from U.S. workers to the introduction of technology, leading to more update of innovation, and hence to the more efficient American system of manufacturing
  34. Schumpeter 1987, Chpt 4
  35. Sowell, T. (2006), "Chapter 5: Sismondi: A Neglected Pioneer", On Classical Economics<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  36. While initially of the view that innovation benefited the whole population, Ricardo was persuaded by Malthus that technology could both push down wages for the working class, and cause long term unemployment. He famously expressed these views in a chapter called "on Machinery", added to the third and final (1821) edition of On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
  37. "Is industrial innovation destroying jobs?". (Originally published in The Cato Journal ). 18 January 2014. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  38. Woirol 1996, pp. 2, 20 - 22
  39. Woirol 1996, pp. 2 , 8 - 12
  40. 40.0 40.1 Woirol 1996, pp. 8 - 12
  41. Samuelson, Paul (1989). "Ricardo Was Right!". The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 91 (1): 47–62.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  42. 42.0 42.1 42.2 James S. Albus, Peoples' Capitalism: The Economics of the Robot Revolution (free download)
  43. 43.0 43.1 James S. Albus, People's Capitalism main website
  44. Noble 1984
  45. Noble 1993.
  46. Rifkin 1995
  47. The Global Trap defines a possible "20/80 society" that may emerge in the 21st century. In this potential society, 20 percent of the working age population will be enough to keep the world economy going. The authors describe how at a conference at the invitation of Mikhail Gorbachev with 500 leading politicians, business leaders and academics from all continents from September 27 - October 1, 1995 at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco, the term "one-fifth-society" arose. The authors describe an increase in productivity caused by the decrease in the amount of work, so this could be done by one-fifth of the global labor force and leave four-fifths of the working age people out of work.
  48. Woirol 1996, pp. 143 - 144
  49. Woirol 1996, p. 3
  50. 50.0 50.1 Mark MacCarthy (30 September 2014). "Time to kill the tech job-killing myth". The Hill. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  51. Brain 2003.
  52. Ford 2009.
  53. Derek Thompson (23 January 2014). "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?". The Nation. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  54. Special Report (29 March 2013). "A mighty contest: Job destruction by robots could outweigh creation". The Economist. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  55. 55.0 55.1 Cardiff Garcia, Erik Brynjolfsson and Mariana Mazzucato (3 July 2014). Robots are still in our control ((registration required)). The Financial Times. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  56. Michael Ignatieff (10 February 2014). "We need a new Bismarck to tame the machines" ((registration required)). Financial Times. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  57. Lord Skidelsky (19 February 2013). "Rise of the robots: what will the future of work look like?". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  58. Francesca Bria (February 2016). "The robot economy may already have arrived". opendemocracy. Retrieved 20 May 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  59. Nick Srnicek (March 2016). "4 Reasons Why Technological Unemployment Might Really Be Different This Time". novara wire. Retrieved 20 May 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  60. Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson (2014). "passim, see esp Chpt. 9". The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393239357.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  61. 61.0 61.1 61.2 As Robots Grow Smarter, American Workers Struggle to Keep Up (2014-12-15), The New York Times
  62. 62.0 62.1 Larry Summers, The Inequality Puzzle, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Issue #32, Spring 2014
  63. "Forum Debate: Rethinking Technology and Employment <--Centrality of work , 1:02 - 1:04 -->". World Economic Forum. January 2014. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  64. Gillian Tett (21 January 2015). technology would continue to displace jobs over the next five years ((registration required)). The Financial Times. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  65. Andy Haldane (November 2015). "Labour's Share". Bank of England. Retrieved 20 May 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  66. Ignazio Visco (November 2015). "For the times they are a-changin'..." Bank of Italy. Retrieved 20 May 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  67. Smith, Aaron; Anderson, Janna (6 August 2014). "AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 14 August 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  68. Jacob Greber (1 February 2015). "Employment fears in the face of increasing automation". The Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  69. Michael Chui, James Manyika, and Mehdi Miremadi (November 2015). "Four fundamentals of workplace automation As the automation of physical and knowledge work advances, many jobs will be redefined rather than eliminated—at least in the short term". McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved 7 November 2015. Very few occupations will be automated in their entirety in the near or medium term. Rather, certain activities are more likely to be automated....CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  70. Steve Lohr (6 November 2015). "Automation Will Change Jobs More Than Kill Them". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 November 2015. technology-driven automation will affect most every occupation and can change work, according to new research from McKinsey<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  71. For a small collection of quotes by Gandhi relating to his view that innovation should be slowed while unemployment exists see The place of machines
  72. B. N. Ghosh (2007). Gandhian political economy: principles, practice and policy. Ashgate. pp. 14, 15. ISBN 0754646815.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  73. Vijay Sanghvi (2006). Congress Resurgence Under Sonia Gandhi. Kalpaz. pp. 33–35. ISBN 8178353407.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  74. Ram K. Vepa (2003). Mao's China: A Nation in Transition. Abhinav Publications. pp. 180–183. ISBN 8170171113.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  75. Ford 2009, passim, see esp. pp. 158 - 168.
  76. GleninCA (26 March 2014). "Robert Reich: Universal Basic Income In The US 'Almost Inevitable'". Daily Kos. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  77. 77.0 77.1 Chris Giles Sept, Sarah O’Connor, Claire Jones and Ben McLannahan (18 September 2014). "Pay pressure" ((registration required)). The Financial Times. Retrieved 14 July 2015.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  78. Ben Tarnoff (16 May 2016). "Tech billionaires got rich off us. Now they want to feed us the crumbs". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  79. Nixon, Richard (1978). RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. ISBN 978-0-448-14374-3.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  80. Ford 2009, pp.162-168.
  81. 81.0 81.1 David Rotman (16 June 2015). "Who Will Own the Robots?". MIT. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  82. Nathan Schneider (January 2015). "Why the Tech Elite Is Getting Behind Universal Basic Income". Vice (magazine). Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  83. Center for Economic and Social Justice, Capital Homestead Act Summary<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  84. David Bollier (January 2013). "POWER-CURVE SOCIETY: The Future of Innovation, Opportunity and Social Equity in the Emerging Networked Economy". The Aspen Institute. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  85. Paul Krugman (March 2011). "Degrees and Dollars". The New York Times. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  86. Baumol 2000, p465
  87. Mathew Forstater (August 2001). "Unemployment in Capitalist Economies - A History of Thought for Thinking About Policy" (PDF). Center for Full Employment and Price Stability , University of Missouri–Kansas City. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  88. Forstater, Mathew (2015). "Working for a better world Cataloging arguments for the right to employment". Philosophy & Social Criticism. 41 (1). doi:10.1177/0191453714553500. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  89. Ed Balls , Lawrence Summers (co-chairs) (January 2015). "Report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity" (PDF). Center for American Progress. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  90. Walker, Tom (2007). "Why economists dislike a lump of labor". Review of Social Economy. 65 (3). Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  91. Larry Page discusses his views on the socioeconomic effects of advanced intelligent systems and how advanced digital technologies can be used to create abundance (as described in Peter Diamandis' book), provide for people's needs, shorten the workweek, and mitigate any potential detrimental effects of technological unemployment. 2014-07-03. Discussion with Sergey Brin and Vinod Khosla. Starting at about 13:00 into the video. The audience is composed of the CEOs of the portfolio companies of Khosla Ventures.
  92. FT interview with Google co-founder and CEO Larry Page (2014-10-31), The Financial Times
  93. "Dr. James Albus". Retrieved 28 March 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  94. Lanchester, John (March 2015). The Robots Are Coming, Vol. 37, No. 5, pages 3-8, London Review of Books
  95. Noah Smith (14 January 2013). "The End of Labor: How to Protect Workers From the Rise of Robots". The Atlantic.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  96. Jaron Lanier (2013). Who Owns the Future?. Allen Lane. p. passim, see esp p.20. ISBN 1846145228.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  97. Labour's Declining Share - A Spectre to Worry About?, The Economist, 2013.11.05
  98. Michael Spence, Labor’s Digital Displacement (2014-05-22), Project Syndicate
  99. Steve Lohr, More Jobs Predicted for Machines, Not People, book review in The New York Times, 2011.10.23
  100. Andrew Keen, Keen On How The Internet Is Making Us Both Richer and More Unequal (TCTV), interview with Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, TechCrunch, 2011.11.15
  101. JILL KRASNY, MIT Professors: The 99% Should Shake Their Fists At The Tech Boom, Business Insider, 2011.11.25
  102. Scott Timberg, The Clerk, RIP,, 2011.12.18
  103. Andrew Leonard, Robots are stealing your job: How technology threatens to wipe out the middle class,, 2014.01.17
  104. David Rotman (June 2015). "How Technology Is Destroying Jobs". MIT. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  105. "The FT's Summer books 2015" ((registration required)). Financial Times. 26 June 2015. Retrieved 14 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>


Further reading

  • Ramtin, Ramin (1991), Capitalism and Automation: Revolution in Technology and Capitalist Breakdown, London, UK and Concord, Massachusetts, US: Pluto Press, ISBN 978-0-7453-0370-3<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Ross, Alec (2016), The Industries of the Future, USA: Simon & Schuster.
  • Scott, Ellis L.; Bolz, Roger W.; University of Georgia; Reliance Electric Company (1969), Automation and Society, Athens, Georgia, US: Center for the Study of Automation and Society<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Ayres, Robert U. (1998). Turning Point: an End to the Growth Paradigm. London: Earthscan Publications.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Ford, Martin (2015), Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future, Basic Books<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>