Advertisement

Massive Technological Unemployment Without Redistribution: A Case for Cautious Optimism

  • Bartek ChomanskiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper argues that even though massive technological unemployment will likely be one of the results of automation, we will not need to institute mass-scale redistribution of wealth (such as would be involved in, e.g., instituting universal basic income) to deal with its consequences. Instead, reasons are given for cautious optimism about the standards of living the newly unemployed workers may expect in the (almost) fully-automated future. It is not claimed that these predictions will certainly bear out. Rather, they are no less likely to come to fruition than the predictions of those authors who predict that massive technological unemployment will lead to the suffering of the masses on such a scale that significant redistributive policies will have to be instituted to alleviate it. Additionally, the paper challenges the idea that the existence of a moral obligation to help the victims of massive unemployment justifies the coercive taking of anyone else’s property.

Keywords

Automation Basic income Technological unemployment Artificial intelligence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for this journal for a range of very helpful suggestions and comments on a previous draft of this paper. The author also benefited from discussions about the topics covered in this paper with Ben Yelle, Katy Shorey, Ron Sandler, and the students in his Technology and Human Values course at Northeastern University.

References

  1. Anderson, E. (2017). Private Government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it). Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auten, G. E., Sieg, H., & Clotfelter, C. T. (2002). Charitable giving, income, and taxes: An analysis of panel data. American Economic Review, 92(1), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielefeld, W., Rooney, P., & Steinberg, K. (2005). How do need, capacity, geography, and politics influence giving. In A. C. Brooks (Ed.), Gifts of money in America’s communities (pp. 127–158). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom, N. (2003). The transhumanist FAQ. https://nickbostrom.com/views/transhumanist.pdf
  7. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. NY: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  8. Danaher, J. (2017). Will life be worth living in a world without work? Technological unemployment and the meaning of life. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 41–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9770-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Field, A. J. (2008). Productivity. The concise encyclopedia of economics. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Productivity.html
  11. Frankfurt, H. (1987). Equality as a moral ideal. Ethics, 98(1), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia, T., & Sandler, R. (2008). Enhancing justice? Nanoethics, 2(3), 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaeser, E., & Gyourko, J. (2002). Zoning’s steep price. Regulation, 25(3), 24–31.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, K., & Kimson, A. (2018). Labor 2030: The collision of demographics, automation and inequality. Boston, MA: Bain & Company.Google Scholar
  16. Huemer, M. (2003). Is there a right to own a gun? Social Theory and Practice, 29(2), 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huemer, M. (2010). Is there a right to immigrate? Social Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobson, P. (1995). Three voluntary economies. Foundations, 2(4), 405–409.Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, J. (2015). Humans need not apply: A guide to wealth and work in the age of artificial intelligence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lederer, E. M. (2018, 3/3/2018). UN humanitarian chief calls Yemen conditions ‘catastrophic’. From http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/humanitarian-chief-calls-yemen-conditions-catastrophic-53390141
  21. Lee, L., Piliavin, J. A., & Vaughn, R. A. C. (1999). Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(3), 276–290.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2695864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Long, R. (2007). Defending a free nation. In E. Stringham (Ed.), Anarchy and the law: The political economy of choice (pp. 149–162). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Lovett, F. (2010). A general theory of domination and justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munger, M. C. (2018). Tomorrow 3.0: Transaction costs and the sharing economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pettit, P. (2008). A Republican right to basic income? In Basic income studies (vol. 2).Google Scholar
  28. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & K. Paul.Google Scholar
  29. Quirk, J., & Friedman, P. (2017). Seasteading: How floating nations will restore the environment, enrich the poor, cure the sick, and liberate humanity from politicians. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rappaport, J. (2018). Pent-up demand and continuing price increases: The outlook for housing in 2018. In The Macro bulletin. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.Google Scholar
  31. Reichert, A. K. (1990). The impact of interest rates, income, and employment upon regional housing prices. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 3(4), 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandefur, T. (2008). Inovation. In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/Innovation.html
  33. Smart Drugs: the Feed Forum. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/story/smart-drugs-feed-forum
  34. Steinberg, R. (1990). Taxes and giving: New findings. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1(2), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stott, R. (2014). Chinese company showcases ten 3D-printed houses. In ArchDaily.Google Scholar
  36. Turner, A. (2016). Between debt and the devil: Money, credit, and fixing global finance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Parijs, P. (1991). Why surfers should be fed: The liberal case for an unconditional basic income. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 20(2), 101–131.Google Scholar
  38. Walker, M. (2014). BIG and technological unemployment: Chicken Little versus the economists. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 24(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  39. Walker, M. (2016). Free money for all: A basic income guarantee solution for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Widerquist, K. (2011). Why we demand an unconditional basic income. The ECSO freedom case. In 2011, Arguing about justice. Essays for Philippe Van Parijs, Presses universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve (pp. 387–394).Google Scholar
  41. Widerquist, K., Noguera, J. A., Vanderborght, Y., & De Wispelaere, J. (2013). Basic income: An anthology of contemporary research.Google Scholar
  42. Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and ReligionNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations