Automation and America’s Next Industrial Revolution: Why We Need to Worry

The next great American revolution is upon us, one that will be based on race and identity, but also driven by increasing automation economics. As Greenberg and Page note in our textbook, “The fundamental democratic principle of political equality is at risk when economic inequality is substantial” (99). Sadly, the United States government has failed its citizens by minimizing the effects of the changing dynamics of the labor force on income inequality with a lack of policies, initiatives and support systems. The capitalist economic model is deeply entrenched in the core beliefs of America’s political culture and greatly impacts the growth, heterogeneity, and movement of the American populace. The issue of automation is complex because it creates bifurcations throughout the nation while also affecting the daily lives of all citizens. It is no secret that due to automation, production rates, workplace safety, and product quality have risen. However, as automation and technological advancements continue to increase at unprecedented speeds due to globalization, economic, political, and social gains and losses will become more extreme and the growing divide between the upper class and the middle and lower class will sharply rise. This will occur due to the elimination of low-skilled jobs and diminished social mobility as only those with access to certain resources will benefit.

One of the largest effects of automation will be the expanded salience of economic inequality. In a 2016 study conducted by the US Council of Economic Advisors, 83% of jobs that pay less than $20 per hour are considered extremely likely to be replaced by automation. This phenomenon has been observed in many sectors of American business, especially within manufacturing where 5 million jobs have been lost since the year 2000. A report from Ball State University found that of those 5 million lost jobs, 88% can be attributed to robots and automation. Truck drivers and those who drive vehicles are also on the front lines of the effects, with some estimates stating that 2 to 4 million of these jobs are at risk of being taken over by self-driving vehicles. Furthermore, for those whose low-skilled jobs get replaced, it will be difficult to find work in a shrinking labor force that needs their particular skills. The charts below give a good illustration of the dangers that automation poses for the lower class and how it will create a larger divide between social classes.

The inevitable rise in automation will also have ramifications for the labor force participation rate. Instead of finding other means of employment after losing jobs to machines, a large number of Americans are not even reentering the workforce. As the Founder and CEO of Venture for America, Andrew Yang, advances, America’s labor force participation rate of 62.9% is comparable to that of the Ukraine and El Salvador. With many of the 95 million working-age Americans (many of which are former manufacturing workers) out of the workforce, the displacement of jobs will only increase as technology expands.

It is imperative to consider the impact of wide-ranging consequences of income inequality. From dividing social classes to hindering economic growth, income inequality casts a bleak outlook on our future. Income inequality also correlates with political inequality because those with access to more resources (money, power, connections, etc) are more likely to have their political views disproportionately represented as opposed to those with little to no influence in government. In addition, unemployment and poverty are directly linked to higher rates of social ills such as crime, addiction, racism, domestic violence, depression, and much more. The list is as long as it is alarming. By analyzing the data, it is no secret that American politicians need to figure out not only how to address the issues of automation and inequality, but also how to begin mitigating the effects of these issues now. The hyper-efficiency of robots and technology has changed the landscape of employment in the United States and the risks, if not properly confronted, can permanently damage the lives of millions of average Americans.

So, how can the government do this? An interesting solution can be found in the growing universal basic income movement. This form of wealth distribution involves the government giving a fixed amount of money, on average $10,000 annually, to individuals regardless of occupation or social status. Universal basic income (UBI) would get aid households living under the poverty line while, at the same time, providing them with an acceptable form of economic security. Many experts see the adoption of UBI as a means to also foster research, creativity, and growth in the job markets. Hence, UBI is considered an “answer to automation” and a compelling strategy to consider in our country’s response to the advancement of machines.

https://qz.com/895681/silicon-valley-is-right-our-jobs-are-already-disappearing-due-to-automation/

https://futurism.com/images/universal-basic-income-answer-automation/

5 Responses to "Automation and America’s Next Industrial Revolution: Why We Need to Worry"

Allison McLaughlin says:

September 24, 2017 at 11:32 pm

I think your insights were extremely interesting and I think it is imperative that our society as a whole begins to recognize and address these problems. Modern society is so focused on furthering our resources and being the world superpower in technological advancement that we often forget the negative effects that can come from such advancement. It is abundantly clear that the automation of services will result in job loss, and there is no plan in place to counteract the negative effects of this. I think this problems begs the question of whether or not all of the automation that will replace so many jobs will be worth it and actually benefit the nation as a whole. While the answer to this may even be no in some cases, it may be too late to slow the pace of technological advancement.

I think the universal basic income movement that you discussed was a very interesting idea that would seem to help with the vast economic disparity in our country, but I think it ignores some of the most glaring problems with the automation of our country. Giving people money will be met extreme amounts of pushback from conservatives and those who firmly believe in the capitalist system, therefore it will struggle to garner the support necessary for funds needed to implement this program. Further, people will not be able to live productive, advancing lives if they cannot work, and the UBI program appears to ignore this aspect of the problem.
Katherine Fell says:

September 25, 2017 at 9:33 pm

I agree with Allison in that your post was both very thorough and insightful. It goes without question that our economy is undergoing an immense transformation that will permanently change the DNA of the American labor force. This growing group of Americans, who throughout the Obama administration felt as though their voices were going unheard in the wake of the many initiatives towards using alternative energy and innovating the economy, have finally taken a stand and elected a president who they believe will help protect their jobs: Donald Trump. Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump made statements about how low skill jobs are diminishing and the hardworking members of this part of the economy are being left behind as America moves forward. These sentiments are very understandable, and it makes sense that these Americans would elect someone who they finally think will have their interests in mind. One industry in particular that Trump was to reinvigorate is the coal industry, and try to bring back the thousands of jobs that are going away with each passing year as the US uses more alternative energy sources. I think that Trump’s intentions are good, and it is unreasonable to expect these workers to leave the coal industry and miraculously adopt the many skills that are required to compete in the new economic landscape. However, it is difficult to rationalize the expansion of an industry that simply does not have a place in the economy anymore, especially given the widespread awareness that there are many more efficient and environmentally friendly sources for energy than goal. This is a conundrum that cannot be solved overnight, and with this issue, all opinions are valid because no one should get left behind in our changing economy. I agree with your statement when you say talk about universal basic income. While we do not know how we can integrate everyone in our new market, we need to make sure that everyone can stay afloat.
Esteban Lara says:

September 27, 2017 at 10:25 pm

(I wrote this comment before but when I tried to post it, the website told me I needed to log in again and as a result of that, I lost my entire work. So now I’ll try to rewrite everything as best as I can remember).

I really like this post because it points out a very important issue that is quickly approaching and will threaten not only the United States, but the entire world as well: automation. The United States already has a wide gap in economic classes, which has led to a bunch of corruption and misrepresentation in the government, as you have mentioned, and automation will only make things worse. Automation will threaten thousands of jobs, and once it becomes a more common practice, more and more people of the working class will be left without a job. This will only widen the gap as the upper classes start cutting costs and the working classes start having more and more trouble finding ways to work and generate income.

However, I don’t personally agree with the UBI as a solution, (at least not the way that it’s implied now). If people get paid a fix wage no matter their economic status, then it gives lazy people the incentive to stop working (as long as they’re okay with earning that much money). A way to fix this problem would be by restricting the UBI only to people who have held a job recently, so people who refuse to work will stop being paid. The problem with this is that it will not help any of the people it was meant to help in the first place, namely those who do lose their jobs due to the rise of automation.

This is a very interesting subject and a big issue, I’m glad you brought it up.
Stephanie Hughes says:

September 27, 2017 at 10:26 pm

The growth of automation in our nation has clearly had a negative impact on the population of people relying on manufacturing jobs. Having grappled with this question before, I know this issue is not easy to resolve. I believe that, as the world becomes more and more globalized, wealth disparities will continue to increase. Everyone wants more, everyone wants better, and everyone wants faster. Our society’s capitalist nature drives this global force. You cite Universal Basic Income as a solution to the wealth gap. However, this is not politically popular and would be extremely expensive. Would it not be wasteful to give this money to those who do not need it? Personally, I am not convinced that UBI is a realistic option for America.
Bradley Schuermann says:

October 1, 2017 at 7:44 pm

The growth of automation and robotics is quite a catch 22. On one hand, the implementation of such precise machines allows our country to soar in productivity. On the other, millions of Americans will go jobless. Can these Americans, trained solely for the jobs that have just been eliminated, make it in the modern world? This issue goes beyond our soil and affects everyone on this planet. Is this path of automation a good bet for the world? I believe so. While a lot must change to accommodate the new world, humanity has the possibility to be reliant entirely on robots and may eliminate the need for people to hold jobs at all. Obviously, such a change holds drastic consequences for society which cannot be predicted.

On the topic of UBI I can’t see such a program ever be implemented in our world today. Perhaps with the advancement of automation it will become a necessity but for now such a program holds incredible societal and economic costs and changes that simply can’t be remedied by the introduction of this program alone.

Comments are closed.