When Even Sex Work is Going to the Robots Should We Still Be Celebrating Labor Day?

It used to be only men had jobs and got paid, then women joined the workforce. Now however the robots have invaded. The really hard part of competing with them, is they don't ask for very much in wages, health benefits (although they do need to be maintained or they just stop working) or really anything else that most humans ask for. In a recent article in the NY Times about women in the workplace it was noted that “the 1990s were a turning point” in employment as suddenly every office had a computer. Robert Moffit, a John Hopkins economist noted: “It’s an economy wide thing. It’s not gender-specific.” Just as technology has reduced the number of jobs in blue collar fields like in agriculture and factory floors, it has also meant fewer white collar jobs like secretaries, bank tellers and retail workers.

More than a couple of decades later we know that technology including armies of robots and artificial intelligence mean almost every job is at risk. Entertainment is moving online requiring fewer and fewer performers. Online education may one day make millions of teachers unnecessary. Self-driving vehicles and trucks will make all those drivers superfluous. Still not convinced. Robots might soon even take over what has been called the oldest profession on earth namely sex work or if you prefer love work. (https://www.theguardian.com/te...)

Statistics show that in the US alone labor participation is down from its heights in the 1950’s and 1960’s. And yet we continue to think that full employment is the right goal to set when in fact what is really required is a better way to distribute the benefits obtained from technology improvements including robots and artificial intelligence. In addition to the issues with trying to attain full employment for all citizens is the fact that there is rising inequality in wages. Non-specialized labor due to both structural changes in the market and the growing use of robots is no longer an asset to be invested in but a cost to be minimized leading to growing compensation inequality. (To Understand Rising Inequality, Consider Janitors At Two Top Companies, Then and Now)

No surprise then that there is finally starting to be a realization that a universal basic income (UBI) may become necessary to preserve law and order. While often presented as a basic flawed tenet of socialism and therefore anathema to a large portion of US citizens, the reality is that the current labor dependent form of income distribution is due to structural changes in the market, automation and the growth of robot armies fast collapsing all around us. Unless we consider the implications and act accordingly, the likelihood of citizen revolts and even chaos is high.

As we claim to celebrate Labor Day it may be time to ponder whether or not only direct compensated labor really can continue to be the basis of our economy. Countries with economies based on commodities such as countries in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have had years to experiment and understand that compensation formulas that rely only on labor are not really sustainable. On the one hand you have the example of a fairly rigid religious monarchy such as Saudi Arabia that doesn't have a universal basic income but has for some time now had something that although it doesn't cover everyone to a large extent works like UBI whether you call it a royal welfare program or a monthly stipend. (https://www.reuters.com/articl...) On the other other hand you have Venezuela that is basically descending into anarchy and citizens are going hungry.

Just this January, Finland decided to test a basic income with a small group of 2000 residents. Receiving a nominal monthly stipend of €560 (or $666), the residents who have participated in the program report less stress and more of a desire to work (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/finland-universal-basic-income-lower-stress-better-motivation-work-wages-salary-a7800741.html). Sounds counterintuitive but if you think it through logical. If instead the stipend was an unemployment benefit and likely to be reduced upon obtaining work, that would be a disincentive. Instead it is allowing artists and entrepreneurs among others to focus on their areas of interest and become contributors to society.

Last year, Ontario, Canada’s largest province also decided to look into doing the same thing. As proponents there noted “it would save on welfare administration costs, reduce the poverty traps of traditional welfare states, be fair to people who have jobs, and give people more autonomy in general.” The program started being rolled out this summer with 4000 participants in the three-year, C$150m pilot program being drawn from the cities of Hamilton, Thunder Bay and Lindsay. (https://www.theguardian.com/wo...)

Just like there are huge differences between Saudi Arabia, Finland and Ontario; we need to put into place realistic systems that will allow our economy to absorb the robots and continue to grow and even succeed even though some of these new policies may not support outdated understandings of how a market economy should work. Closing our eyes to the problem could result in our ending up looking more like Venezuela then we want and will not in any way help move the country forward.

Photo credit: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

and http://basicincome.org/news/20...