Tag Archives: unemployment

AI and rural jobs

This Wired article is written by a Microsoft executive originally from the southwest corner of Virginia, which is where I happen to be originally from. He gives a few examples of how technology can transform old jobs and create new jobs in out of the way places.

  • Running “automated” farming equipment requires some combination of mechanical fix-it ability and IT help desk ability.
  • Keeping the books at a nursing home chain requires some fairly advanced database skills.
  • Precision plastic parts can be molded locally by technicians trained at community college, rather than ordered from abroad.

October 2019 in Review

Most frightening and/or depressing story:

  • A third of all of North America’s birds may have disappeared since the 1970s. (Truth be told, it was hard to pick a single most depressing story line in a month when I covered propaganda, pandemic, new class divisions created by genetic engineering, and nuclear war. But while those are scary risks for the near future, it appears the world is right in the middle of an ongoing and obvious ecological collapse, and not talking much about it.)

Most hopeful story:

  • I’ll go with hard shell tacos. They are one of the good things in this life, whether they are authentic Mexican food or “trailer park cuisine” as I tagged the story!  

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both:

  • A list of “jobs of the future” includes algorithms, automation, and AI; customer experience; environmental; fitness and wellness; health care; legal and financial services; transportation; and work culture. I’ll oversimplify this list as computer scientist, engineer, doctor, lawyer, banker, which don’t sound all that different than the jobs of the past. But it occurs to me that these are jobs where the actual tools people are using and day-to-day work tasks evolve with the times, even if the intended outcomes are basically the same. What might be new is that even in these jobs, you need to make an effort to keep learning every day throughout your career and life if you want to keep up.

There will still be openings for evil HR cats.

Cognizant Jobs of the Future Index

What kind of education and job skills should you recommend to young people today (assuming career/economic success is the goal. Yes, the world needs philosophers and musicians but sadly that is not a path to material success for many)? I figure biotech, materials science, robotics and computer science (deep theoretical understanding and/or engineering, not just code writing). Again, if material/economic success is the goal, I think you need knowledge and skills that are attractive to the private sector. (My own are mostly of interest to the public sector. I don’t regret my choices but this does put a ceiling on the potential size of my bank account.) There should be plenty of jobs in education and health care services, but not necessarily well paying ones at least in the U.S. I think there will always be plumbers and electricians.

Okay, now let’s see if I’m right. Here is the Cognizant Jobs of the Future Index. There are way too many jobs to list here, but their categories are:

  • algorithms, automation, and AI (okay, this is the computer science route, although someone could also try the math/statistics or even actuarial science path)
  • customer experience (this appears to cover what might be traditionally known as sales and marketing)
  • environmental (includes energy-related fields and environmental engineering – well, what do you know, maybe my choices aren’t so bad after all…)
  • fitness and wellness (home health care, physical therapy, etc. – things an aging population will need and hard to automate at least in the near term)
  • health care (includes the obvious, but also data science, genetic related, and medical device engineering related jobs)
  • legal and financial services (yes, lawyers will still be a necessary evil)
  • transportation (more on the engineering and planning side, not so much taxi and truck drivers…)
  • work culture (your human resources department will also continue to be a necessary evil)

So, I think a kid could do worse than a degree in chemical, mechanical or electrical engineering, then specialize from there. (Civil/environmental is nice…but again…the public sector thing). If you want to be a doctor or lawyer, go for it. The world will still need artists, philosophers, and in general people who can think, understand systems and solve problems, but it is still unclear when we will start valuing these things.

Universal Basic Income, VAT, and baby bonds

A few 2020 Presidential contender highlights:

  • Andrew Yang (polling at about 1%) is promoting a Universal Basic Income of $1000/month for all U.S. citizens 18 and older regardless of income. He would pay for it by scaling back some other assistance programs and instituting…a VAT.
  • Cory Booker (polling at about 2%) is promoting “baby bonds”, where every baby gets a $1000 bond annually, and low-income children get up to an additional $2000 per year.

These are all ideas that (any) Democratic President and Congress could explore together, if they were to get a chance and managed to keep the corporate lobbyists at bay. I am 1000% in favor of VAT. It is just one of those things that all other modern countries do and the U.S. does not. It works and we just need to do it. Other taxes people hate can be reduced.

Both the UBI and baby bond ideas are supposed to address inequality quickly. The baby bond idea is supposed to particularly help racial disparities in wealth very quickly, but there is no reason the UBI could not do that with some fine-tuning. I like the idea of setting kids up with assets in principal, but in practice I am afraid unscrupulous relatives, Wall Street and payday lenders will find a way to take advantage of them. The UBI would essentially just be a “Social Security for All” scheme. We have the bureaucracy for that all set up and ready to go, so it seems practical to me. The only other difference I see between the two is that the government can more easily go back on a promise to pay you in the future than it can take money away from you that it has already paid. But of course it can do either, let’s not be naive.

My verdict – I’d like to see a VAT and a carbon tax used to fund education, infrastructure, and research. All of these things should help keep people busy if technology really does lead to unemployment. People can study to upgrade their knowledge and skills, design and build infrastructure and other types of capital goods, or go into research and teaching. Unemployment and disability insurance could also be beefed up to cover the gaps.

service jobs and automation

Gizmodo says automation of service jobs took great leaps forward in 2018, citing things like automated ordering kiosks in fast food restaurants. I have to admit, I kind of like it because I don’t feel guilty about making a special order, and I feel like I am much more likely to get what I want. And ordering and paying by mobile app has those advantages, plus cuts the wait time to zero and greatly decreases germ transmission.

The article talks about how Las Vegas unions have negotiated early notification and retraining programs to help deal with automation. And this is how we have to try to deal with at the level of the economy as a whole. Educate and train people for jobs where they can add value in the near future. teach them to think flexibly and creatively so they can come up with new ways to add value in jobs and roles nobody has even thought about yet, reduce barriers to starting a business or taking risks on a new idea, and share the wealth a bit more when all else fails.

more jobs doesn’t lessen poverty?

This article digs into a study on correlations between poverty, job creation and social mobility (along with several other factors). Unfortunately, just creating new jobs in low-income areas didn’t seem to increase the chances of children moving up the economic ladder compared to their parents. However, living or moving to a neighborhood where most people are employed does increase the chances of a child moving up the economic ladder compared to their parents.

It’s puzzling. The explanation that is easy to jump to is that cultural factors are very important and can’t be changed overnight. I’m sure there is some truth to that. I can think of other potential factors though – maybe parents in low income areas are taking those jobs, but whatever extra income they are pulling in is not enough to offset spending less time with their children. Maybe they are more likely to be single parents, lack extended family support, struggle with substance abuse and mental illness, not be able to afford high quality health care and child care, and live in low-performing school districts. Under these circumstances, it wouldn’t be too surprising that their children are not getting ahead. Those middle class professional parents in the neighborhoods where everyone is employed are probably scraping together enough to pay for decent health care and child care, and are probably demanding more from their school systems.

universal basic income

This post on BillMoyers.com runs some of the numbers on the idea of a universal basic income.

The UBI would be for those who truly needed it — those who could not endure traditional full-time employment, either because of age, illness, disability, caretaking or student status. As baby boomers grow old and need care, as students struggle to earn an education without becoming hideously indebted, and as parents yearn to stay home with infants and very young children, a UBI would truly revolutionize society.

Proposals vary, with costs depending on whether or not UBI would be paired with other social programs, like universal health care. Karl Widerquist, a Georgetown professor of political philosophy, estimated that at $6,000 per child and $12,000 per adult, the net cost of UBI would be $539 billion per year.

This number may sound astronomical, but to put it into perspective, Widerquist writes, a UBI would cost “less than 25 percent of the cost of current US entitlement spending, less than 15 percent of overall federal spending, and about 2.95 percent of Gross Domestic Product.”

Wealthy and powerful people don’t like ideas to share the wealth, of course. But they should recognize that if we get to a point where there is enough wealth to go around, but not enough jobs to go around, there has to be some way to share the wealth or else there will be no possibility of a stable society.

Will robots take my job?

If you want to know if robots will take your job, you can go to willrobotstakemyjob.com. It turns out my job (“environmental engineer” is the closest match) is particularly hard to automate at just a 1.8% chance robots will take my job, so I’ve got that going for me. I typed in ten other other career choices to see what I would get, then ranked them from most to least at risk.

  • auto mechanic: 59%
  • electrician: 15%
  • electrical engineer: 10%
  • mathematician: 4.7%
  • biochemist/biophysicist: 2.7%
  • materials scientist: 2.1%
  • chemical engineer: 1.7%
  • computer scientist: 1.5%
  • mechanical engineer: 1.1%
  • nurse: 0.9%

I won’t bother typing in the obvious ones like taxi driver (89%) or court reporter (50%). Okay, I did and that last one surprised me a little. The ten I picked weren’t random, they were ones I thought would be safe, and it turns out I was right except for auto mechanic. I’m a little surprised at that. Vehicles are merging with computers and getting more complex all the time, which means they are going to require more troubleshooting, updating, and will become obsolete faster than the past. I would also think a car mechanic could cross-train as a robot mechanic pretty easily. So the mechanics of the future will have to be equal parts grease monkey and tech support. Maybe they won’t be called mechanics, but the complicated systems we are creating are going to break in unpredictable ways and skilled troubleshooters are going to be in demand.

Anyway, the bottom line is that most types of engineering, and research positions related to genetics and/or materials, are pretty safe. Nursing is a field where supply just never seems to catch up to demand, and medical technology (and spending) just keep marching forward as the population ages and lives longer. You can still make a living as an electrician or a plumber.

I also learned something about the Standard Occupational Classification system used by the U.S. Department of Labor.

The 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system is used by Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data. All workers are classified into one of 840 detailed occupations according to their occupational definition. To facilitate classification, detailed occupations are combined to form 461 broad occupations, 97 minor groups, and 23 major groups. Detailed occupations in the SOC with similar job duties, and in some cases skills, education, and/or training, are grouped together.

 

men and automation-driven job loss

This Wired article, despite its offensive title (MEN WILL LOSE THE MOST JOBS TO ROBOTS, AND THAT’S OK), makes some interesting points that the kinds of jobs being automated today might disproportionately affect men.

Robots are coming for our jobs—but not all of our jobs. They’re coming, in ever increasing numbers, for a certain kind of work. For farm and factory labor. For construction. For haulage. In other words, blue-collar jobs traditionally done by men…

Some political rhetoric blames outsourcing and immigration for the decline in “men’s work,” but automation is a greater threat to these kinds of jobs—and technological progress cannot be stopped at any border. A recent Oxford study predicted that 70 percent of US construction jobs will disappear in the coming decades; 97 percent of those jobs are held by men, and so are 95 percent of the 3.5 million transport and trucking jobs that robots are presently eyeing. That’s scary, and it’s one reason so many men are expressing their anger and anxiety at home, in the streets, and at the polls.

While all of this is going on, though, there’s a counter­phenomenon playing out. As society panics about bricklaying worker droids and self-driving 18-wheelers, jobs traditionally performed by women—in the so-called pink-collar industries, as well as unpaid labor—are still relatively safe, and some are even on the rise. These include childcare. And service. And nursing, which the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts will need a million­-plus more workers in the next decade.

Because when I walk by Bubba the construction worker with his cat calling and cigar smoking I think, that’s the guy I want to leave alone in my home with my children. Of course, that’s as stereotype, but I pass a few Bubbas on the way to my job every day, where I pound on a keyboard alongside men and women. I’m willing to buy the idea that manly jobs are filled mostly by men, but I’m not willing to buy the idea that most men work at manly jobs. I don’t have the stats, but I willing to speculate there are a lot of us men pounding on keyboards for every manly lumberjack and cowboy out there. I wouldn’t discourage my son from considering a career in nursing or elementary school teaching, if that interests him, but more likely I will gently steer both my son and daughter toward technical fields like computer science, genetics, or engineering where they can be the ones designing and directing the technologies that is changing all our lives. I would like them to have a solid foundation of a well-rounded education in language, history, and ethics, which everyone needs, and then some solid skills with real economic value to top that off.

minimum wage and unemployment

In this Atlantic article, James Kwak summarizes several theories on why a higher minimum wage doesn’t seem to increase unemployment in the real world as the simple supply-and-demand theory would predict.

The idea that a higher minimum wage might not increase unemployment runs directly counter to the lessons of Economics 101. According to the textbook, if labor becomes more expensive, companies buy less of it. But there are several reasons why the real world does not behave so predictably. Although the standard model predicts that employers will replace workers with machines if wages increase, additional labor-saving technologies are not available to every company at a reasonable cost. Small employers in particular have limited flexibility; at their scale, they may not be able to maintain their operations with fewer workers. (Imagine a local copy shop: No matter how fast the copy machine is, there still needs to be one person to deal with customers.) Therefore, some companies can’t lay off employees if the minimum wage is increased. At the other extreme, very large employers may have enough market power that the usual supply-and-demand model doesn’t apply to them. They can reduce the wage level by hiring fewer workers (only those willing to work for low pay), just as a monopolist can boost prices by cutting production (think of an oil cartel, for example). A minimum wage forces them to pay more, which eliminates the incentive to minimize their workforce.In the above examples, a higher minimum wage will raise labor costs. But many companies can recoup cost increases in the form of higher prices; because most of their customers are not poor, the net effect is to transfer money from higher-income to lower-income families. In addition, companies that pay more often benefit from higher employee productivity, offsetting the growth in labor costs. Justin Wolfers and Jan Zilinsky identified several reasons why higher wages boost productivity: They motivate people to work harder, they attract higher-skilled workers, and they reduce employee turnover, lowering hiring and training costs, among other things. If fewer people quit their jobs, that also reduces the number of people who are out of work at any one time because they’re looking for something better. A higher minimum wage motivates more people to enter the labor force, raising both employment and output. Finally, higher pay increases workers’ buying power. Because poor people spend a relatively large proportion of their income, a higher minimum wage can boost overall economic activity and stimulate economic growth, creating more jobs. All of these factors vastly complicate the two-dimensional diagram taught in Economics 101 and help explain why a higher minimum wage does not necessarily throw people out of work. The supply-and-demand diagram is a good conceptual starting point for thinking about the minimum wage. But on its own, it has limited predictive value in the much more complex real world.

Even if a higher minimum wage does cause some people to lose their jobs, that cost has to be balanced against the benefit of greater earnings for other low-income workers. A study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that a $10.10 minimum would reduce employment by 500,000 jobs but would increase incomes for most poor families, moving 900,000 people above the poverty line. Similarly, a recent paper by the economist Arindrajit Dube finds that a 10 percent raise in the minimum wage should reduce the number of families living in poverty by around 2 percent to 3 percent. The economists polled in the 2013 Chicago Booth study thought that increasing the minimum wage would be a good idea because its potential impact on employment would be outweighed by the benefits to people who were still able to find jobs. Raising the minimum wage would also reduce inequality by narrowing the pay gap between low-income and higher-income workers.