I. The Problem of Artificial Intelligence and Automation
Kurt Vonnegut’s debut novel Player Piano, published is 1952, is a reflection on the impact of automation on daily life. It’s a story of people searching for meaning in their lives in a world in which there is no meaningful work for them to do. In the world of Player Piano, everyone has an adequate standard of living but most men are assigned by the government to useless jobs to keep them busy, while virtually all women are housewives who watch a lot of television.
The dystopia of Player Piano has not come to pass... yet. As in the novel, during the second half of the 20th century, millions of Americans did leave their workbenches and assembly lines as machines and robots replaced factory workers on a vast scale (or factory jobs just went overseas). This has not resulted in a economy with widespread unemployment however, because the US successfully made a transition from an industrial economy to a post-industrial service economy. (The term "successfully" is subjective; in 1952 virtually any man could get a good job working at General Motors, while in 2019 America’s largest private-sector employer is Wal-Mart, a company that pays below the poverty line.)
So, questions regarding the shrinking middle-class aside, America’s post-industrial economy is humming right along. Or at least it will be, until the next revolution in automation eliminates the service jobs that are now the backbone of the job market. No doubt about it - artificial intelligence will soon make millions of workers obsolete, both in the industrial and service sectors. From a recent Fortune.com article by Gwen Moran entitled, Your Job Will be Automated - Here’s How to Figure Out When A.I. Will Take Over:
"Automation is increasingly making its way into the workplace, raising concerns among employees about the ways technology will change their jobs—or eliminate them entirely. A June 2019 report by Oxford Economics predicts that 8.5% of the world’s manufacturing positions alone—some 20 million jobs—will be displaced by robots by 2030."
OK, robots replacing factory workers is not news. But from the same article:
"A 2013 paper, "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation?" found that roughly 47% of jobs were at high risk of being automated with advances in artificial intelligence."
"This isn’t some futuristic hypothetical. Michael Chui, Ph.D., a partner at McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), says roughly half of the tasks people perform at work could theoretically be done by technology that exists today.
And it’s not just low-income workers whose jobs will change. Chui and his team estimate that roughly six out of 10 jobs are made up of 30% or more tasks that can be automated. CEOs, financial advisors, insurance agents, and others all fall into this category."
II. Don't Expect Any Help from the Republican Oligarchy
So now it’s 2052, the centennial of the publishing of Player Piano, and the automated world described by Kurt Vonnegut has come to pass: there is no productive work for many or most folks to do. In Player Piano, most men are assigned to killing time in public works jobs that aren’t really needed. Ironically, if millions of workers were given public works jobs in today’s America it would actually be a great thing, given our crumbled infrastructure.
My key concern regarding an automated world is this: what makes anyone think that the billionaire oligarchy that controls America's economy and politics will establish a nanny state that would provide employment and social security for millions of people simply because folks can’t find jobs? Knowing what we do about today’s Republicans, isn’t it more likely they would just shrug their shoulders and let widespread poverty takeover?
Consider the Republican attitude to the Medicaid expansion included with Obamacare. The law was designed to provide health insurance to those who cannot afford otherwise afford it, generally because they have no income or resources. Most states controlled by Republicans have refused the Medicare expansion, going so far as to turn down federal grants that would provide life-saving care to those who cannot otherwise afford it.
Conservative Kansas typifies the Republican non-solution to the problem. From a 2015 article by Kartrina vanden Heuvel of the Washington Post:
"Kansas has some of the most restrictive Medicaid eligibility requirements in the country. The program is available only to non-disabled adults earning less than 32 percent of the federal poverty level, and most childless adults don’t qualify, regardless of income. The Affordable Care Act was supposed to raise that threshold to 138 percent, but Brownback declined to implement the Medicaid expansion. As a result, thousands of poor Kansans who would qualify for Medicaid in other states remain uninsured.
Brownback has often characterized his opposition to expanding Medicaid and other poverty programs, in (editor of The Nation Kai) Wright’s words, as a "moral rejection of dependency." Last June, for example, Brownback told the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal Web site that Kansas had not expanded Medicaid because "We’re trying to push people that are able-bodied right now to get a job." Similarly, Brownback pledged in his State of the State address this year to continue "helping people move from dependence on the government to independence."
But, in practice, Brownback’s resistance to Medicaid expansion is causing some people to move from independence to desperation. Wright spoke with several Kansans who are suffering because of Kansas’s severe eligibility requirements. Far from the right-wing caricature of lazy moochers, they are hard workers who aren’t looking for a handout. One woman, RaDonna, is too sick to hold down food, let alone a full-time job. Yet, as a childless adult, she doesn’t qualify for Medicaid — and the state rejected her application for disability benefits. While RaDonna now lives with her sister, Cathy, she insists on helping with the laundry and dishes to earn her keep. "She can’t do the whole sink full of dishes without stopping and sitting down for a while," Cathy says.
The stories from Kansas are heartbreaking, but unfortunately they are not unique. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "Nationally, nearly four million poor uninsured adults fall into the ‘coverage gap’ that results from state decisions not to expand Medicaid." Republicans have full control of the legislature in all 21 states that have not expanded the program.
"For most Republican leaders, opposing Medicaid expansion is simply a matter of ideological faith. "Why is more people on Medicaid a good thing?" (Wisconsin Governor Scott) Walker asked last year. Echoing Brownback, he added, "I’d rather find a way, particularly for able-bodied adults without children, I’d like to find a way to get them into the workforce. I think ideologically that’s a better approach, not just as a conservative but as an American. Have more people live the American dream if they’re not dependent on the American government." More recently, Walker framed his position in religious terms. "My reading of the Bible finds plenty of reminders that it’s better to teach someone to fish if they’re able," he said."
To summarize, millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance. Many of these folks are too sick or otherwise disadvantaged to be able to find and retain the kind of full-time work that provides insurance. Yet Republican leaders have responded to the problem with a shrug of the shoulders, effectively dooming these these Americans to continue to be denied healthcare. Given these facts, is there any reason to believe that Republicans won’t also deny other basic necessities to those who are unable to find work after being displaced by artificial intelligence? The country has had crises of unemployment in the past; Republicans responded to both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2009 mostly by doing nothing.
So let’s assume we remove Republicans from power before everyone who loses a job to artificial intelligence dies from lack of food, shelter and health care. What then? Well if you ask some leading technologists, they’ll tell you we need a program of universal basic income. Next time, I’ll discuss universal basic income in detail; who thinks it's viable on a large scale, how it might work and what might go wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment