Automation & the Human Laborer
When asking someone what he/she thinks about when they hear the term automation, several different images may appear for the viewer. They could see images of C3-PO advising their future self on their personal dilemmas or images of them riding in a driverless car on their commute to work. But, there are also other images that might come to mind. People losing their jobs, struggling to find work, and even images of people failing to provide for their families. Some even view automation as the “end of the world” with envisions of Skynet taking control of the world’s nuclear missiles, while others will look to adapt to combat this new change in the workforce. David Rotman, editor for MIT Technology Review, writes about automation in his article “How Technology is Destroying Jobs” and talks about the human workers’ struggle to adapt to automation that has been implemented into the workforce. An example for this can be seen in the history of agricultural farm labor. “In 1900, 41 percent of Americans worked in agriculture; by 2000, it was only 2 percent” (Rotman 2013).
|
Automation initially had a primary impact agricultural blue collar jobs, but is now having a similar, if not identical effect on many other jobs, including white collar jobs. The driving force behind these new changes has always been humans trying to make their lives easier. Automation is an inevitable advancement that will continue to involve itself in human society. While some may view these advancements as a benefit to society, others view these changes as a direct competitor to the human laborer. Most, when presented with both sides of the argument, will make a choice as to whether they believe automation is for the greater good or will only continue to hurt the human laborer’s progression. But, taking one side verses the other doesn’t solve the issue of automation. After looking at both sides, we will then try to determining what the most productive approach towards automation will be to provide an outlook on what the future of the human workforce might resemble.
![Picture](/uploads/8/2/6/0/82609262/cotton-gin.gif?286)
Advancements in machinery have been continuously occurring for centuries. These radical changes with automation in the workplace is nothing new. The human labor alone is simply too slow to not want to speed up production. An example seen in history which echoes this notion is the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1793. Before the cotton gin, laborers were forced to separate the seeds in cotton by hand which was a very long and arduous process. When the cotton gin was introduced to workers in the field, the gin allowed separation of seed from cotton for less labor and more production. What once cost 50 cents in labor to yield a day’s worth of cotton could now be done for 10 cents with the help of the cotton gin (Marx 1906). While from an outsider’s perspective this advancement in machinery back in 1793 could be viewed as a huge benefit to the human laborer being able to produce cotton much faster and more efficiently, there are still those who view this as a negative impact on the human worker. One famous speaker on machinery in the workforce was philosopher Karl Marx. The view presented by Marx was that machinery was brought into the workforce to make work easier for humans and to increase productivity of the worker. However, this ends up hurting the human worker as it eventually leads to replacing the worker entirely. Marx was extremely skeptical of workplace machinery in this way (Marx 1906). While Marx has long been gone to see all the current advancements automation has had in the workforce, there are still others who share his skepticism.
As automation technology advances, we are starting to see technologies like IBM’s famous Watson computer making strides to better predict cancer treatment and diagnostics on patients like an Oncologist would, using a library of medical reports along with a patients individual detailed medical history. We are also starting to see the ways in which educators might soon be automated. User interfaces on computers are becoming more easily accessible and usable allowing for students to feel more comfortable with accessing educational content on their own online rather than going into a physical school. Subsequently, using large datasets which monitor how students communicate on online forums, view lectures, and complete assignments while combining advancements in user interfaces could create virtual tutors specifically designed to facilitate how students retain material. Therefore, eliminating the need for a human teacher (Frey and Osborne 2013).
|
![Picture](/uploads/8/2/6/0/82609262/pilot.jpg?250)
However, with more automation becoming common within our everyday lives, humans are susceptible to falling into the trap of becoming over reliant on automation. An example we have seen of this overreliance is with pilots and automatic flight control. By becoming too comfortable with automation taking over certain responsibilities, we tend to forget to continue monitoring the automation for failure. A study done by the National Transportation Safety Board found that 77% of incidents were caused from failure in monitoring by human pilots due to overreliance on automation (Parasuraman and Riley 1997). We can also see examples of automation abuse. When landing an airplane, in order to apply the brakes to stop the aircraft, the onboard computer has to first sense the landing gear has touched down on the tarmac. Before this sensor is received by the computer, the pilot has no control over reverse thrusters or spoilers to stop the lift of the aircraft. The reason this type of automation is present in airplanes is because of the lack of trust in the human pilot to prevent catastrophe. However, the problem with taking all the control away from the human pilot in these situations is that it prevents human intervention in the event that automation breaks down. Machines aren’t perfect and while they are consistent with the tasks they perform, they can still fail a task. As we can see from these examples of misuse of automation, humans can fall into the trap of becoming too comfortable with leaving all responsibility up to automation which can result in disastrous effects and can also threaten production of operations (Parasuraman and Riley 1997). While this exemplifies the ways in which humans are still needed to assist automation and its shortcomings, there are still not enough jobs to keep human workers employed.
Statistics have shown technology is improving productivity, which helps grow the economy. But the amount of wages dispersed is not growing nearly as much. This stagnation in wage disbursement implies that fewer human workers are needed to increase productivity and profits. Similarly, if we look at the statistics from the U.S. Labor Participation Rate, we see a significant split between productivity of goods and workers wages. While both production and wages once rose together, we now see that production is continuing to increase while wages plateau and begin to decline. This brings up the notion that although new jobs are continually being created from technology, we are not seeing enough jobs being created to stop the decline in employment (Vardi 2016). And while this is alarming for the human worker, there are still reasonable arguments for interpreting this decline as unworthy of concern.
|
![Picture](/uploads/8/2/6/0/82609262/automatememe.jpeg?250)
President and Chief Executive Officer for Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI), Stephen Gold, avers that automation has overall raised our living standards as humans. Personal computers have made completing everyday tasks much easier which were once designated to personal secretaries. Though it is an unfortunate result having personal secretaries out of a job, using your own personal computers to replace a hired secretary results in faster and more frequent production at less cost which generates new wealth for society. But the speed in which automation is advancing and the lack of jobs being created as a result doesn’t necessarily imply our future will be filled with poor unemployed humans as we saw from the statistics shared earlier (Vardi, 2016). Senior Editor at WIRED Business, Marcus Wohlsen, remarks on the advancements in automation saying “Traditionally, increased productivity correlates with economic growth and job growth, since human labor has historically driven production. A robot workforce, however, can drive productivity and growth on its own, eliminating jobs in the process” (Wohlson 2014). This idea brought up by Wohlson is a fascinating prediction of the future. What is being proposed is that with all the advancements in automation, we could one day live in a world where automation has taken over every working profession resulting in humans not having to work for a living anymore. Having a robot workforce could in fact solve the unemployment problem entirely by suppling the products humans need to survive. Wohlson still points out the fact that even if automation successfully eliminated the need for jobs, humans would still need to find a different purpose in life. We tend to define who we are as people by our profession. If jobs are then eliminated, we can focus on how we define ourselves without associated ourselves with our profession. While these visions of a potential future are enticing to imagine, for the current issue of automation, we need examine what is most beneficial to the human worker and society for the time being.
By taking a step back and looking at both sides of automation presented, it appears as though we are supposed to choose which side we want to be on. One side presents its case for automation directly resulting in the decline in economic growth with the loss of human laborers while the other side tries to ease the anxiety of the human worker by bringing up the ways in which advancements in automation have helped improve our lives. But is the answer to automation really present in either of these two views? There is another way to encounter automation which could be the best option for humans to receive the benefits automation brings to society while also developing a productive relationship between human and machine. While machines are good for fast and efficient production, the human laborer is good for flexibility and reasoning. While the idea of living in a future where jobs are no longer necessary might seem like a welcoming change, in reality, both the human worker and machine rely on each other to continue to be productive. We see that humans can use automated machines like the Watson computer to better detect and treat diseases such as cancer. But we also can see how automation such as the auto pilot still needs to be monitored and assisted by the human pilot in the event automation breaks down. One cannot advance without the other (Jordan 1963).
|
It might be easy to look at the jobs being lost to automation and begin to feel anxious towards your own profession or brush off the fact that more jobs are being replaced by automation every day. But we need to learn how to adapt and embrace the tools machines present to the human worker while still finding ways in which humans can utilize machines as a tool to advance and better our society. Machines can make great use for completing routine tasks faster and more efficiently. But, machines lack the wisdom and experience of humans which is needed when automation fails. Humans and machines working side by side is needed for production growth while being failsafe. Once we find that perfect balance between humans and machines, we can then rest easy for what the future has in store. .
References
Frey, Carl Benedikt and Michael A Osborne. 2013. “The Future of Employment.” Oxford University. Accessed July 28, 2016. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf
Gold, Stephen. 2015 “The Future of Work.” Industry Week, May 12. Accessed July 12, 2016. http://www.industryweek.com/automation/future-work.
Jordan, Nehemiah. 1963. Allocation of functions between man and machines in automated systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 47(3), Jun 1963, 161-165.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043729.
Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. The Process of Capitalist Production. Frederick Engels, Ernest Untermann, eds. Samuel Moore, Edward Aveling, trans. Library of Economics and Liberty. Accessed July 24, 2016. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm.
Parasuraman, Raja, and Victor Riley. 1997. "Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39, no. 2 (1997): 230-253.
Rotman, David. 2013. “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs” MIT Technology Review June 12. Accessed July 26, 2016. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/.
Vardi, Moshe Y. 2016 “Are robots taking our jobs?” Significance, May 12. Accessed July 20, 2016. https://www.statslife.org.uk/economics-and-business/2789-are-robots-taking-our-jobs.
Wohlson, Marcus. 2014. “When Robots Take All the Work, What’ll Be Left for Us to Do?” Wired Business August 8. Accessed July 26, 2016.
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/when-robots-take-all-the-work-whatll-be-left-for-us-to-do/.
Frey, Carl Benedikt and Michael A Osborne. 2013. “The Future of Employment.” Oxford University. Accessed July 28, 2016. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf
Gold, Stephen. 2015 “The Future of Work.” Industry Week, May 12. Accessed July 12, 2016. http://www.industryweek.com/automation/future-work.
Jordan, Nehemiah. 1963. Allocation of functions between man and machines in automated systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 47(3), Jun 1963, 161-165.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043729.
Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. The Process of Capitalist Production. Frederick Engels, Ernest Untermann, eds. Samuel Moore, Edward Aveling, trans. Library of Economics and Liberty. Accessed July 24, 2016. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm.
Parasuraman, Raja, and Victor Riley. 1997. "Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39, no. 2 (1997): 230-253.
Rotman, David. 2013. “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs” MIT Technology Review June 12. Accessed July 26, 2016. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/.
Vardi, Moshe Y. 2016 “Are robots taking our jobs?” Significance, May 12. Accessed July 20, 2016. https://www.statslife.org.uk/economics-and-business/2789-are-robots-taking-our-jobs.
Wohlson, Marcus. 2014. “When Robots Take All the Work, What’ll Be Left for Us to Do?” Wired Business August 8. Accessed July 26, 2016.
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/when-robots-take-all-the-work-whatll-be-left-for-us-to-do/.