The invention and use of robots will take human jobs because its aim is to replace the human mind, not simply make industry more efficient. The lucrative business incentives such as high output, efficiency, and quality offered by robots are driving so many employers away from human labor. Even so, some experts have argued that these assembled beings will serve to raise the living standards by lowering prices of goods to zero, end toil and poverty for all. However, it is known fact that robotic productivity will only raise output at the expense of lowering demand for labor. A case in point is the high rate of job loss in developed countries attributed to automation. The subsequent texts in this document will elaborate why the rise in automation will render so many people jobless.
Are Robots a curse or blessing?
Irrespective of the benefits associated with robotic production, its implementation and use should not come at the expense of a jobless future generation. Bit by bit, its use have shifted the investments away from machines that complement human labor, eliminate workers who cannot compete or cope, and on some occasions eliminated their jobs completely. This concept is illustrated by Jeffrey, Seth, and Guillermo (2015), in their analysis of the implications of capital investment in the form of robots to replace human labor. Their findings are also aligned with our position-that robotic productivity is more likely to lower welfare of workers and future generations apart from pushing them down the jobless path.
Furthermore, labor shares in most world economies have dropped significantly in the wake of the year 2000, which is attributed to automation. When goods produced by these robots becomes close substitute to goods produced by humans, then their will emerge modern forms of competition – robots vases humans. Unlike in the first half of 20th century (1933), where “technological unemployment” was merely a temporary face of maladjustments, the next job displacements will subject humans to much greater suffering.
Right now, one can only imagine the dilemma of being compared to robots in terms of what they can deliver in a day. This is superimposed by similar research which quantifies the perspective human redundancy at over 47% of the current human jobs that will be automated in the next two decades. Definitely, these robots should be regarded as curse rather than a blessing.
The Economics of Human Replacement
The number of sophisticated tasks performed by machines has overcome the thinking level of normal human beings. Ironically, will productions by ourselves ever become better than ourselves? Look no further, Junior the 2013’s World Computer Chess Champion, developed by our own can beat almost every human being now and in the future. Its code implementation has also largely put so many chess programmers out of business.
A good case study is the high-tech and low-tech workers. The first group does analytical tasks like producing software codes or machines, while the second group does interpersonal tasks like services delivery or artistry. The high-tech workers produce new software codes or machines, which adds to these existing codes or cache of technologies. The resulting product is a smatter technology which can do most to the tasks done by low-tech workers (e.g. Drivers, industry workers, astrologers, painters, etc.). Usually at the early stages of developing new software codes or technologies, there is high demand for new code or ideas, hence high compensation for high-tech workers. However, as the code stock legacy grows and automated means become more reliable means of producing better goods or services(through machine learning with the intervention of a few professionals), the demand for high-tech workers fall. The new technologies also replace low-tech workers whose services are now offered by these automated machines (robots).Current and future high-tech workers are also rendered obsolete in the process. Therefore, when robots finally replace people, they will finally bite the hands of those that financed or produced them.
Are robots compliments or substitutes?
Due to the high rate of unemployment created as result of automation, robots should be considered as professional substitutes rather than supplements. Historically, the emergence of these robots like the invention of ATM (the 1970s) dragged along many casualties especially tellers. And recently, the introduction of driverless cars to the market in countries like Japan has left many gripped with fear of job loss. Perhaps, professionals should take the initiative to venture into more interesting jobs at the expense of repetitive and monotonous tasks. This will also present the more reasons for workers to pursue jobs where they are more motivated, rather than repetitive tasks which are easy to automate.
The emerging innovation in technology has continued to raise eyebrows especially when it affects the economic well-being of humans. Despite the so many advantages that have been associated with robots, it should never have gone too close to where it hurts most for most beings. We have proven beyond reasonable doubt that automation with the aim of replacing humans has pushed so many people out of work. As much as automation has been pushed down our throat in disguise of improving living standards-by lowering prices of goods to zero, ending toil and poverty for all. Fact is they have shifted investments away from machines that complement labor.
Furthermore, the development of more advanced robots will eventually eliminate workers who cannot compete or cope. More interesting is that even the future generations will not be spared in this swipe. Some researchers have also quantified the perspective human redundancy at over 47% in the next two decades. All in all, it has become apparent that possibilities of robots rendering human obsolete is endless. Perhaps, it will be better if professionals undertake spirited research into jobs which will be more yielding to our future generations, rather than a repetitive task that can easily be automated.