The coming job apocalypse
By Harold
Meyerson, March 27, 2014 - Washington Post
As a general rule, more Americans work than do the citizens of other advanced
economies. Since the late 1970s, when the number of women in the workforce
ballooned, the share of Americans who either had jobs or were trying to get one
was greater than the share of comparable Europeans. For reasons good and bad —
the higher availability of jobs, the need to bolster stagnating incomes, the
linkage of jobs to health insurance — Americans worked like the dickens.
But that general rule may be changing. The percentage of working-age adults
in the U.S. labor force began to decline in 2000, when it reached a peak of 67
percent. As of last month, it was down to 63
percent, which is lower than the level in the United Kingdom. Not since the
late 1970s has Britain had a higher share of workforce participants than the
United States.
Part of this decline is because of the retirement of aging boomers, but that
explanation goes only so far. It doesnft explain, for instance, why the
workforce participation of Americans ages 25 to 34 has declined from 83.3
percent to 81.8 percent since 2007, as the Financial Times reported this week.
Worse yet, the number of hours that working Americans are on the job is in
decline, too. In the past six months, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics
data, the average workweek has shrunk from 34.5 hours to 34.2 hours
— even as the official unemployment rate has dropped.
Anti-Obama partisans blame the president and his policies for the dwindling
workforce, but the decline began in the last year of Bill Clintonfs presidency
and continued through much of the presidency of George W. Bush. Clearly, either
bipartisan public policy or something more fundamental than public policy is to
blame.
The bipartisan public policy that should raise the most suspicion is trade
policy, which fostered the offshoring of more than 2 million manufacturing jobs after Congress
normalized trade relations with China in 2000. But an even more fundamental
factor in the declining share of working Americans is the technological
automation that has eliminated millions of jobs and is poised to eliminate
millions more.
The mechanization of work has already taken a toll in the nationfs ports
(where cranes have reduced the longshore workforce to roughly 10 percent of
its size 60 years ago), factories (where machines and computers have substituted
for millions of workers), construction sites (where the prefabrication of parts
has reduced the number of construction workers ) and offices
(whatever became of secretaries?). And with increasing computing capacity
steadily expanding the abilities of machines, we ainft seen nothing yet.
In a paper they wrote last year, Carl Benedikt
Frey of Oxford Universityfs Program on the Impacts of Future Technology, and
Michael A. Osborn, an Oxford engineering professor, broke down the U.S. economy
into 702 distinct occupations and classified those occupations by the
probability of their computerization over the next few decades. They concluded
that 47 percent of U.S. workers have a high probability of seeing their jobs
automated over the next 20 years, including in transportation (where the driverless car has become a reality), manufacturing and
retail sales. They offer no particular policy suggestions to remedy this
cataclysm, save that ghigh-skill and high-wageh jobs are the least likely to be
swept away and that workers, accordingly, need gto acquire creative and social
skillsh that computers are unlikely to master until a more distant time.
Frey and Osborne acknowledge that there is a lot of speculation encoded in
their equations. But even if theyfre half right, or just a third right, that
would mean that 23.5 percent or 15.7 percent, respectively, of U.S. workers face
a future of employment extermination. I doubt that the mass acquisition of
creative and social skills is sufficient to meet this challenge. The way to deal
with such a job apocalypse would begin with the very measures that we have
failed to enact to combat the cyclical downturn that began in 2008: a massive
government program to build and repair our infrastructure and to provide the
preschool education and elder care that the nation needs, which would increase
consumption and economic activity generally.
Eventually, however, as computers pick up more and more skills, we will have
to embrace the necessity of redistributing wealth and income from the shrinking
number of Americans who have sizable incomes from their investments or their
work to the growing number of Americans who want work but canft find it. That
may or may not be socialism; certainly, itfs survival.
© The Washington Post Company