 |
A CNC Mill: https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnrhawk/3964417019 |
It’s no secret our world is becoming increasingly digitized. Between biomedical supercompanies like Intuitive Surgical assisting doctors in high-precision surgery, to the robots that help stock and maintain Amazon’s warehouses, robots are doing more labor for us than ever before. In fact, Tesla maintains fully-automated assembly lines for their electrical vehicles, and Google’s Everyday Robot Project is developing new robots that will assist people throughout their daily lives. In fact, there are 1.79 robots for every 1,000 workers according to The Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis. It’s clear that robots are automating the tasks that we used to do ourselves, but what is the impact of this wide-spread automation?
In terms of microeconomics, the effect of robots in certain industries is vast. We no longer see many United States citizens working on the assembly line because they simply don’t have to. Jobs with simple, repetitive tasks are the ones most likely to be taken by a robotic counterpart-- jobs that involve sorting, categorizing, etc.. For companies, it is often easier (and more cost-effective) to “hire” a robotic machine than to pay a worker compensation and benefits. If the robot gets hurt, after all, the company will not have a potential lawsuit on their hands. With increasing economic scarcity, companies are fighting over resources to build the best products with the highest profit margins. Therefore, it makes sense that these jobs that are easiest to automate and being “taken” by the robots.
In fact, for a manager considering opportunity cost for these jobs, the robot wins every time. Why? Robots are a one time expense, while workers must be paid compensation on a timely basis. The robot quite literally pays for itself over time, all while saving the company valuable resources. Not to mention, but on a macroeconomic scale, the automation of these jobs creates even more “future-ready” jobs in technology and robotics. Robots may be “taking” the jobs that require the least thought, but in the process, increasing automation actually creates more “future-proof” jobs in STEM, jobs that require dynamic thought rather than routine labor. Is this pervasive automation a positive thing? That is up to you to decide. However, Oxford Economics recommends choosing a career that is “future-proof regardless.”
What does future-proof mean? It means choosing a job that is dynamic, one that often cannot be done by a robot. Jobs that involve unpredictable motions, human analysis, and general creativity are the hardest to replicate. This means that jobs like welding, trucking, and many research fields likely will not be automated within the coming century. However, jobs such as machining and manufacturing may be. It’s up to you what career path you take, but making sure it is future-proof is essential in this day and age.
Robots may be taking our jobs, but their potential impact on economic growth is vast. Just make sure to pick a future-ready job!
Works Cited
Bharadwaj, Asha, and Maximiliano A. Dvorkin. “The Rise of Automation: How Robots May Impact the U.S. Labor Market.” St. Louis Fed, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 29 July 2019, www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/second-quarter-2019/rise-automation-robots.
“How Robots Change the World - What Automation Really Means for Jobs, Productivity and Regions.” Oxford Economics, www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/how-robots-change-the-world.
I think it is interesting to see how the workforce has changed with increased automation and this has created a new factor when choosing jobs. However, is it really possible to choose a future-proof jobs with AI getting more advanced everyday? Even jobs which are seen as dynamic (e.g. x-ray, MRI, etc readers) can soon be taken over by machines who can do it faster and sometimes more accurately.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting problem because you have problems that are easier than others to automate. Obviously you can't recreate the creative process, so that's one. And robots haven't (yet) gotten to the point which they would be able to imitate all the advanced functions of a human so I don't know.
DeleteHaving a variety of focuses, skills, and talents makes the economy work. People of different skills interacting is what helps us progress as a nation. By alternative focuses being pigeonheld to put more attention on "future-proof" jobs, we limit these interactions, stunting our progress. With all of the working class being on one side of the spectrum, we lose the variability that allows us to learn from eachother. Although it's ignorant to expect companies to consider this when it comes to productivity and profit, I think it is an important thing for us to consider, and to become more creative in our job prospects with out limiting us to a select few fields.
ReplyDeleteAmazon, which I'm glad you mentioned, is probably one of the best examples of large companies investing more in robots than human employees. I remember reading that Amazon has air conditioning only in facilities which contain robots, for they will overheat without it. Yet, human-only locations would be subject to no such decency. I'm glad that people like you, and 2020 presidential candidate and Democrat Andrew Yang, are thinking about how the government can help reduce the devastating impact that automation is rapidly producing.
ReplyDelete