The End of Labor: How to Protect Workers From the Rise of Robots

5 Aug
* Jan 14, 2013

Technology used to make us better at our jobs. Now it’s making many
of us obsolete, as the share of income going to workers is crashing,
all over the world. What do we do now?

Here’s a scene that will be familiar to anyone who’s ever taken an
introductory economics course. The professor has just finished
explaining that in economics, “efficiency” means that there are no
possible gains from trade. Then some loudmouth kid in the back
raises his hand and asks: “Wait, so if one person has everything,
and everyone else has nothing and just dies, is that an ‘efficient’
outcome?” The professor, looking a little chagrined, responds:
“Well, yes, it is.” And the whole class rolls their eyes and thinks:

For most of modern history, inequality has been a manageable
problem. The reason is that no matter how unequal things get, most
people are born with something valuable: the ability to work, to
learn, and to earn money. In economist-ese, people are born with an
“endowment of human capital.” It’s just not possible for one person
to have everything, as in the nightmare example in Econ 101.

For most of modern history, two-thirds of the income of most rich
nations has gone to pay salaries and wages for people who work,
while one-third has gone to pay dividends, capital gains, interest,
rent, etc. to the people who own capital. This two-thirds/one-third
division was so stable that people began to believe it would last
forever. But in the past ten years, something has changed. Labor’s
share of income has steadily declined, falling by several percentage
points since 2000. It now sits at around 60% or lower. The fall of
labor income, and the rise of capital income, has contributed to
America’s growing inequality.


What can explain this shift? One hypothesis is: China. The recent
entry of China into the global trading system basically doubled the
labor force available to multinational companies. When labor becomes
more plentiful, the return to labor goes down. In a world flooded
with cheap Chinese labor, capital becomes relatively scarce, and its
share of income goes up. As China develops, this effect should go
away, as China builds up its own capital stock. This is probably
already happening.

But there is another, more sinister explanation for the change. In
past times, technological change always augmented the abilities of
human beings. A worker with a machine saw was much more productive
than a worker with a hand saw. The fears of “Luddites,” who tried to
prevent the spread of technology out of fear of losing their jobs,
proved unfounded. But that was then, and this is now. Recent
technological advances in the area of computers and automation have
begun to do some higher cognitive tasks – think of robots building
cars, stocking groceries, doing your taxes.

Once human cognition is replaced, what else have we got? For the
ultimate extreme example, imagine a robot that costs $5 to
manufacture and can do everything you do, only better. You would be
as obsolete as a horse.

Now, humans will never be completely replaced, like horses were.
Horses have no property rights or reproductive rights, nor the
intelligence to enter into contracts. There will always be something
for humans to do for money. But it is quite possible that workers’
share of what society produces will continue to go down and down, as
our economy becomes more and more capital-intensive. This
possibility is increasingly the subject of discussion among
economists. Erik Brynjolfsson has written a book about it, and
economists like Paul Krugman and Tyler Cowen are talking about it
more and more (for those of you who are interested, here is a huge
collection of links, courtesy of blogger Izabella Kaminska). In the
academic literature, the theory goes by the name of “capital-biased
technological change.”

The big question is: What do we do if and when our old mechanisms
for coping with inequality break down? If the “endowment of human
capital” with which people are born gets less and less valuable,
we’ll get closer and closer to that Econ 101 example of a world in
which the capital owners get everything. A society with cheap robot
labor would be an incredibly prosperous one, but we will need to
find some way for the vast majority of human beings to share in that
prosperity, or we risk the kinds of dystopian outcomes that now
exist only in science fiction.


How do we fairly distribute income and wealth in the age of the

The standard answer is to do more income redistribution through the
typical government channels – Earned Income Tax Credit, welfare,
etc. That might work as a stopgap, but if things become more severe,
we’ll run into a lot of political problems if we lean too heavily on
those tools. In a world where capital earns most of the income, we
will have to get more creative.

First of all, it should be easier for the common people to own their
own capital – their own private army of robots. That will mean
making “small business owner” a much more common occupation than it
is today (some would argue that with the rise of freelancing, this
is already happening). Small businesses should be very easy to
start, and regulation should continue to favor them. It’s a bit odd
to think of small businesses as a tool of wealth redistribution, but
strange times require strange measures.

Of course, not all businesses can be small businesses. More families
would benefit from owning stock in big companies. Right now, America
is going in exactly the opposite direction, with companies going
private instead of making their stock available for public
ownership. All large firms should be given incentives to list
publicly. This will definitely mean reforming regulations like
Sarbanes-Oxley that make it risky and difficult to go public; it may
also mean tax incentives.

And then there are more extreme measures. Everyone is born with an
endowment of labor; why not also an endowment of capital? What if,
when each citizen turns 18, the government bought him or her a
diversified portfolio of equity? Of course, some people would want
to sell it immediately, cash out, and party, but this could be
prevented with some fairly light paternalism, like temporary
“lock-up” provisions. This portfolio of capital ownership would act
as an insurance policy for each human worker; if technological
improvements reduced the value of that person’s labor, he or she
would reap compensating benefits through increased dividends and
capital gains. This would essentially be like the kind of socialist
land reforms proposed in highly unequal Latin American countries,
only redistributing stock instead of land.

Now of course this is an extreme measure, for an extreme
hypothetical case. It may turn out that the “rise of the robots”
ends up augmenting human labor instead of replacing it. It may be
that technology never exceeds our mental capacity. It may be that
the fall in labor’s income share has really been due to the great
Chinese Labor Dump, and not to robots after all, and that labor will
make a comeback as soon as China catches up to the West.

But if not – if the age of mass human labor is about to permanently
end – then we need to think fast. Extreme inequality may be
“efficient” in the Econ 101 sense, but in the real world it always
leads to disaster.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: