Dehumanizing

I overheard a conversation today on how machines are reducing the number of available jobs.  Based on what I heard, I guess the idea being discussed was that automating processes reduces available jobs, which causes harm.  A second question was brought up about whether automation is reducing the opportunity for people to grow and progress.  The conclusion seemed to be that automation should be limited, because it is harmful to people.  I would like to discuss why this is not so and how the potential harm can be mitigated.

Ultimately all costs can be broken down to labor costs.  Even transportation costs are ultimately labor costs.  Here is how it works: When you buy something from the store, it had to be created, packaged, and shipped.  It is obvious that the cost of a cashier or stocker is a labor cost.  Transportation costs are also labor costs.  The obvious part is the driver, pilot, or captain.  I won't go into fuel costs, because it should be clear that that is also a labor cost when I finish.  Packaging may be done entirely by machine, but it is still only a labor cost.  If the machines require maintenance, that is labor.  Creating the product required labor, again, if there were machines involved, all of their costs break down to labor.  Now, how were the raw materials of the product obtained?  Through human labor.  Now for the machines: If there were machines involved, how did they get there?  We can go through the same steps to see how machine costs all come down to labor.  Human life started with nothing.  Everything we have is the result of labor.  Even when machines are building machines, there was at one point an original machine that was built using labor.  And further back, there were the original tools that were built with human labor.  Every cost ultimately originates with human labor.

How do machines fit in then?  They reduce labor.  Thinking about it at this very basic level, it is hard to see how that can be bad.  The reason it is viewed as bad is because we have an expectation of labor for our sustenance.  Reducing labor reduces jobs, and we see jobs as necessary to provide for our survival.  Thus, reducing labor reduces survival.

On the other side, however, we can see that reducing labor must reduce cost.  If cost is reduced, then the amount of labor required for survival should also be reduced.  From this perspective, we can follow a logical progression, where in the end everything is automated, thus no labor is required, there is no cost, and everything is produced for free.  Why then is reducing labor viewed as bad?

It is all in our heads.  Reducing labor is not bad.  In fact, without a reduction in labor, we would never have had the free time to learn advanced sciences and mathematics, nor would we have had time to develop all of the modern technologies that depend on those things.  Where, then, is the problem?

The problem is not in reducing labor.  The problem is where the benefits of reduced labor are going.  Production costs for food, housing, clothing, technology, and everything else are the lowest they have ever been in the history of the world.  The U.S. alone produces enough food to feed itself and have over 60% left over for export.  Further, of the 40% of food used to feed ourselves, half is wasted.  We are producing 5 times the food we need.  Why are there beggars in every large city in the U.S. who only eat one meal a day and that only when they are lucky?  If we are producing that much food, why are people in our country starving?

The problem is greed.  Companies buy machines to reduce costs and consequently have to lay off those workers whose labor is being automated.  This reduces production costs dramatically.  Instead of lowering prices to share the savings, however, the company keeps all of the additional profits.  This reduces labor without reducing prices.  This causes an imbalance in value of labor to cost of goods.  The result is 659% inflation in the last 50 years and an average increase in wages of only 75% (for most of the population).  The problem is not automation, it is greed.  So, what is the solution?

There are many potential solutions.  The one I overheard was regulating automation.  The problem with this solution is that it does not allow progress.  It will ultimately result in stagnation.  It will limit innovation and creativity.  If this is seen as a valid solution, then why not go further?  We can eliminate unemployment entirely by destroying all of technology.  When we are all reduced to hunter/gatherers, we can all have jobs, because anyone who does not work will starve to death.  Why should we allow greed to reduce us to poverty when the means to provide for everyone exist?  Regulating automation might hide the symptoms, but it will not cure the disease.

I don't know if there is an ideal solution, and I am certain there is no solution that everyone will agree with.  What I do know is that if it is possible that we can get to a point where automation can do everything for us with little or no labor, if we do not do something about this problem, it will destroy our civilization.  Consider, over the flow of time, if things are slowly automated until everything that can be automated is.  Now, our current policy seems to be to automate processes and then lay off the workers and keep the profits for ourselves.  If this occurs at each point where a process is automated, eventually all but a select few laborers will be laid off, unable to make any money to support themselves.  A vast majority of civilization will be jobless, unable to generate enough income to survive.  At the same time, we will be producing absurd amounts of every product imaginable, at almost no cost.  This is the logical progression that we are currently following.

I have two potential solutions, one that we are currently trying and one that a friend suggested.  I prefer the second.  The first is welfare.  As more and more processes become automated and fewer and fewer people are needed to provide labor, the government puts those laid off on welfare.  This is what we are currently trying, only there is one fatal flaw.  For this solution to work, the funds must be taken from the other side of the imbalance.  Namely, the money used to provide welfare must come from the businesses.  This is essential, because that is where all of the money is going.  If all of the money goes to the businesses, but the welfare funding comes from other sources, there will eventually be no money to fund welfare.  Currently, the government gives large businesses (which happen to be the ones with large scale automation) extensive tax breaks.  All of the welfare money comes from the very small number of extremely wealthy individuals and the middle class.  As automation increases and labor decreases, the middle class will be eliminated.  The very rich avoid high taxation by keeping most of their money in their businesses (stock options and such).  If everyone in the country is either on welfare, or rich but avoiding taxes, the government will have no source of income to pay for the welfare.  This is already a very controversial solution, but it would work.  There are certain ethical questions regarding the power of government, with reference to our natural rights, however.

The second solution, suggested by a friend, is less centralized and less prone to corruption, in my opinion.  First, reduce the work week to 20 hours a week, and raise minimum wage to a point where people can survive on 20 hours a week of work.  This would cause businesses to reduce hours per employee, to avoid paying overtime.  It would double the number of full time jobs available, practically eliminating unemployment.  It would also generate enough income for the employed to survive on.  This would essentially spread out the very reduced need for labor.  Profit margins for businesses would drop dramatically, but only the most poorly run businesses would be destroyed (leaving room for new businesses).  The rest of the businesses would have to reduce their rapid expansion as well as their research and development (the loss of jobs due to this would be insignificant compared to the dramatic increase).  This solution is ideal, because the reduction in labor provided by automation would actually reduce labor, instead of making less than a percent of the population filthy rich ripping off everyone else.  In addition, everyone would still have the opportunity for work, and the government would not have to be heavily involved, like it would for a huge welfare system.  The only limitation of this system is that it would need periodic adjustment, as more processes are automated and less labor is required.

As for the suggestion that reducing labor might reduce opportunity for progression, as well as creativity and innovation, I doubt that this is the case.  Historically, reducing labor has done just the opposite.  When the Greeks employed cheap slave labor to produce their food, the reduction in labor for the general Greek population resulted in so much leisure time that they managed to develop advanced mathematics and philosophy, both of which have had an indispensable role in the development of modern science and technology.  I can see that reducing labor will make some people lazy, but I think that a government campaign encouraging people to take up a hobby or two in their free time would counter this and then some.  With this much free time, imagine how quickly technology and science could advance.

Automation is not dehumanizing.  Greed is dehumanizing.  Automation reduces the need for labor.  If we can overcome the artificial need for labor created by greed, we would be the most prosperous civilization to live on this Earth.  We already produce enough to do this, as least in the U.S., but so long as we allow it to only benefit a few, we will continue to struggle with economic problems like unemployment and poverty.

Lord Rybec