As automation and artificial intelligence technologies improve, many individuals worry concerning the way forward for work. If hundreds of thousands of human staff not have jobs, the worriers ask, what is going to people do, how will they supply for themselves and their families, and what changes might occur (or be needed) to ensure that society to regulate?

Many economists say there may be no have to worry. They point to how past major transformations in work tasks and labor markets – specifically the Industrial Revolution through the 18th and nineteenth centuries – didn’t result in major social upheaval or widespread suffering. These economists say that when technology destroys jobs, people find other jobs. As one economist argued:

“Since the dawn of the commercial age, a recurrent fear has been that technological change will spawn mass unemployment. Neoclassical economists predicted that this may not occur, because people would find other jobs, albeit possibly after an extended period of painful adjustment. By and huge, that prediction has proven to be correct.”

They are definitely right concerning the long period of painful adjustment! The aftermath of the Industrial Revolution involved two major Communist revolutions, whose death toll approaches 100 million. The stabilizing influence of the modern social welfare state emerged only after World War II, nearly 200 years on from the 18th-century beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.

Today, as globalization and automation dramatically boost corporate productivity, many staff have seen their wages stagnate. The increasing power of automation and artificial intelligence technology means more pain may follow. Are these economists minimizing the historical record when projecting the long run, essentially telling us not to fret because in a century or two things will get well?

Upheaval greater than a century into the Industrial Revolution, and greater than 100 years ago: An International Workers of the World union demonstration in New York City in 1914.
Library of Congress

Reaching a tipping point

To learn from the Industrial Revolution, we must put it in the correct historical context. The Industrial Revolution was
a tipping point. For many 1000’s of years before it, economic growth was practically negligible, generally tracking with population growth: Farmers grew a bit more food and blacksmiths made a number of more tools, but people from the early agrarian societies of Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and India would have recognized the world of Seventeenth-century Europe.

But when steam power and industrial machinery got here along within the 18th century, economic activity took off. The growth that happened in only a pair hundred years was on a vastly different scale than anything that had happened before. We could also be at an identical tipping point now, referred to by some because the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” where all that has happened up to now may appear minor in comparison with the productivity and profitability potential of the long run.

Getting predictions mistaken

It is straightforward to underestimate upfront the impact of globalization and automation – I even have done it myself. In March 2000, the NASDAQ Composite Index peaked after which crashed, wiping out US$8 trillion in market valuations over the following two years. At the identical time, the worldwide spread of the web enabled offshore outsourcing of software production, resulting in fears of knowledge technology jobs disappearing en masse.

The Association for Computing Machinery frightened what these aspects might mean for computer education and employment in the long run. Its study group, which I co-chaired, reported in 2006 that there was no real reason to imagine that computer industry jobs were migrating away from developed countries. The last decade has vindicated that conclusion.

Our report conceded, nonetheless, that “trade gains could also be distributed differentially,” meaning some individuals and regions would gain and others would lose. And it was focused narrowly on the knowledge technology industry. Had we checked out the broader impact of globalization and automation on the economy, we might need seen the much greater changes that even then were taking hold.

Spreading to manufacturing

In each the primary Industrial Revolution and today’s, the primary effects were in manufacturing within the developed world. By substituting technology for staff, U.S. manufacturing productivity roughly doubled between 1995 and 2015. As a result, while U.S. manufacturing output today is essentially at an all-time high, employment peaked around 1980, and has been declining precipitously since 1995.

Unlike within the nineteenth century, though, the results of globalization and automation are spreading across the developing world. Economist Branko Milanovic’s “Elephant Curve” shows how people across the globe, ranked by their income in 1998, saw their incomes increase by 2008. While the income of the very poor was stagnant, rising incomes in emerging economies lifted tons of of hundreds of thousands of individuals out of poverty. People on the very top of the income scale also benefited from globalization and automation.

But the income of working- and middle-class people within the developed world has stagnated. In the U.S., for instance, income of production staff today, adjusted for inflation, is actually at the extent it was around 1970.

Now automation can be coming to developing-world economies. A recent report from the International Labor Organization found that greater than two-thirds of Southeast Asia’s 9.2 million textile and footwear jobs are threatened by automation.

Waking as much as the issues

In addition to spreading internationally, automation and artificial intelligence are starting to pervade entire economies. Accountants, lawyers, truckers and even construction staff – whose jobs were largely unchanged by the primary Industrial Revolution – are about to seek out their work changing substantially, if not entirely taken over by computers.

Until very recently, the worldwide educated skilled class didn’t recognize what was happening to working- and middle-class people in developed countries. But now it’s about to occur to them.

The results might be startling, disruptive and potentially long-lasting. Political developments of the past 12 months make it clear that the difficulty of shared prosperity can’t be ignored. It is now evident that the Brexit vote within the U.K. and the election of President Donald Trump within the U.S. were driven to a significant extent by economic grievances.

Our current economy and society will transform in significant ways, with no easy fixes or adaptations to reduce their effects. But when attempting to make economic predictions based on the past, it’s value remembering – and exercising – the caution provided by the distinguished Israeli economist Ariel Rubinstein in his 2012 book, “Economic Fables”:

“I’m obsessively occupied with denying any interpretation contending that economic models produce conclusions of real value.”

Rubinstein’s basic assertion, which is that economic theory tells us more about economic models than it tells us about economic reality, is a warning: We should listen not only to economists with regards to predicting the long run of labor; we must always listen also to historians, who often bring a deeper historical perspective to their predictions. Automation will significantly change many individuals’s lives in ways that could be painful and enduring.

This article was originally published at