When humans compete with machines, wages fall and jobs disappear. Ultimately, however, new and better categories of jobs will be created. For example, the mechanization of agriculture in the first half of the 20th century, or advances in computer and communications technology in the 1950s and 1960s, went hand in hand with strong, widely shared economic growth in the United States and other advanced economies.

But, in the decades that followed, something in that relationship began to break down. Since the 1980s, we’ve seen the robotics revolution in manufacturing; the rise of software in all fields; the consumer Internet and the Internet of Things; and the development of artificial intelligence. But during this period, U.S. gross domestic product growth slowed, inequality rose, and the real earnings of many workers — especially men without college degrees — plummeted.

Globalization and the decline of unions have played a role. But so are technical job disruptions. The issue is starting to gain traction in Washington. In particular, politicians and policymakers are paying attention to the work of MIT professor Daron Acemoglu, whose research shows that mass automation is no longer a win-win for capital and labor.he testify Automation — the replacement of tasks previously performed by workers with machines and algorithms — was responsible for 50-70% of the economic disparity between 1980 and 2016, at a select committee hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives in November.

Why is this happening? Basically, while automation in the early 20th century and the post-1945 period “increased the productivity of workers in all walks of life and created countless opportunities for them,” as Acemoglu put it in his testimony, “we have experienced since the mid-1940s. The 1980s saw an acceleration in automation, while the introduction of new tasks decelerated dramatically.” In short, he added, “the U.S. economy’s technology mix has become more imbalanced and, in a way, extremely disadvantageous to workers, especially those with low education.”

What’s more, some of the things we automate now are not so economically beneficial. Consider those annoying computer checkouts in drugstores and grocery stores that force you to scan your purchases yourself. They might save retailers a little in labor costs, but they’re hard to increase productivity, like self-driving combine harvesters.Cecilia Rouse, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers she told Council on Foreign Relations event, she’d rather be ‘in line’ [at the pharmacy] That way someone else has a job – it may not be a good job, but it’s a job – and I really feel like I’m better helped. “

Nonetheless, there is no holding back the technology. The question is how to ensure that more workers can benefit from it.In a ‘Virtual Davos’ speech a few weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen point out Recent technology-driven productivity gains may exacerbate rather than reduce inequality. She noted that while the “pandemic-induced surge in telecommuting” will ultimately boost U.S. productivity by 2.7%, the gains will be largely due to high-income white-collar workers, as online learning is better accessed and taken advantage of by wealthy white students.

Education is the key to addressing technology-driven inequalities.as a Harvard researcher Claudia Golding and Lawrence Katz It has been shown that when the relationship between education and technological gains breaks down, technology-driven prosperity is no longer widely shared. That’s why a Biden administration has been pushing for investments in community colleges, apprenticeships and worker training.

The idea is to prevent the hollowing out of labor markets, such as the Clinton-era embrace of free trade without adequate protections for workers. If they are not trained to deal with technology-driven change, the anger of blue-collar workers in swing states in the Midwest may be dwarfed by the anger of low- and middle-income service workers whose jobs are automated.

Other problems require policy solutions.Companies get more tax benefits from technology investment, it can depreciate, not manpower. Eliminating depreciation allowances for equipment such as software and robotics could close the gap.

Competition policy and better corporate governance can also play a role. As Acemoglu told the House of Representatives last year, “Big tech has a special approach to business and technology centered around the use of algorithms to replace humans. Companies like Google employ less than 10 percent of the people that large corporations like General Motors used to have. One, it’s no coincidence.”

Big Tech’s business model is to get rid of human labor and turn human behavior into raw materials. It will come under increasing pressure in the coming year as the government tries to pass legislation to curb the power of platforms by the mid-term. The larger question of how to reconnect the fate of capital and labor in the coming era of mass automation remains unanswered.

[email protected]