ation
Ronise Nepomuceno Journalist
A
Automation in the workplace is the new bogeyman of current affairs news headlines. But the subject is hardly news. By 1950, Detroit, in the United States, had lost almost 60,000 jobs as a result of automation in the automobile industry. Its population decreased from almost two million to less than 700,000 people today. From one of the richest cities in the United States, Detroit has become one of the poorest. It is no wonder that automation is something that one should take seriously. But while the automation of 1950 was limited to simple and repetitive activities, advances in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence threaten professions with more complex tasks. In 2013 a survey by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne of the University of Oxford warned that 47% of jobs in the United States and 35% in the UK could be automated. According to Frey and Osborne, the professions at greatest risk would be those in the service industry, such as estate agency, while the professions least at risk would be those in the media, such as journalism. But would they really? At the end of 2017, The Economist magazine tested a computer program that could mimic its editorial style and identify issues most often addressed. Although the phrases produced by the program were grammatically correct, the final text did not make sense. The magazine then declared, jokingly, that its reporters would not have to worry about the future of their jobs. But we still cannot breathe a sigh of relief. There are companies already developing programs that collect data and compile them into a coherent text. Narrative Science is one such program. Its chief scientist, Kristian Hammond, says that within 15 years machines will be able to write 90% of the news.
Despite all warnings, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently said that automation would affect fewer jobs than predicted. Still, the impact would increase social divisions and could cause more damage than in Detroit. For middle-class workers it is still possible to transfer their knowledge and skills to other professions, but those in manual labour are among the most threatened. For this reason, there have been, since the 80’s, discussions that advocate the implementation of a Universal Basic Income. This income would be paid by the government to all citizens, regardless of their work or economic situation. This idea is not new. In 1516, Thomas More wrote about Universal Basic Income in his political satire Utopia. In 1776 Thomas Paine presented a similar proposal in a pamphlet in which he also advocated the liberation of the British colonies. Both authors idealized a society in which machines would generate wealth that would then be distributed as universal social income. Implementing a Basic Income would not mean the end of poverty. It would, however, create better conditions so that those made jobless could get trained in other areas without the pressure of rent to pay and bellies to fill. Entrepreneurs would also receive the support needed to launch their innovations. Finland and Scotland have already been experimenting with Social Income since 2016, albeit limited to a few localities. Noticeable positive results include increased productivity, improvements in education and health and the emergence of new businesses in the cultural area. This shows that Universal Income, besides being a way to prevent social and economic chaos brought in by automation, is also a sustainable investment in people. Maybe building Utopia is not only a possibility but in fact a necessity.
