Britain, Business, Economic, Government, Society, Technology

The rise of automated robots is creating fear in the workplace. But why?

ECONOMIC & TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES

WE shouldn’t be surprised if trade union’s such as the TUC is waxing lyrical about how robots and new technology will liberate us all to work less for the same money.

After all, no less an authority than Karl Marx claimed automation would help free the miserable proletariat from their mundane drudgery.

John Maynard Keynes predicted in his 1930 Essay, Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren, that technology would allow people to work no more than 15 hours a week. “Three days a week is quite enough,” he opined. Keynes didn’t have any grandchildren, but if he had, it’s highly unlikely they would be basking in hours of leisure time.

Employment in the UK is at its highest since 1974, when ABBA won the Eurovision song contest and we actually did have a three-day week (but for all the wrong reasons).

Not everyone sees the advance of robots and technology in the workplace, in warehouses, manufacturing plants or even in new possible areas such as care homes, as a good thing. Fears that machines will make humans redundant or enslave us are as old as technology itself. Crackpot ideas such as Amazon’s robot-driven cage for its employees – now mercifully ditched – is an example that doesn’t exactly help.

In a fascinating speech on the future of work, Bank of England governor Mark Carney said that, in the past, machines substituted for “hands” or manual labour. Now artificial intelligence means they might replace “heads” or brain work, leaving “hearts” to people – or, in other words, work that involves emotion, imagination, innovation, caring and creativity, which could translate into more fulfilling work that adds value to the economy.

 

HISTORY tells us automation does not take away human work, but simply shifts people from one type of work to another.

One of the biggest technological revolutions receives virtually no attention from economists because it has mainly affected women. But, by making housework so much easier, the spread of domestic appliances such as vacuum cleaners and washing machines has arguably changed the workplace and society as much as the smartphone.

The idea that robots will take employment away from humans rests on the “lump of labour” fallacy that there are a fixed number of jobs in an economy, so if a robot takes one, a human being will be consigned to the dole queue. In reality, however, it is not like that. Economies are dynamic, so if robots add to productivity and growth then more, not fewer, jobs will be created for humans.

This doesn’t mean the introduction of technology will be seamless. Overall, technology may be beneficial, but individuals can and do lose out if their jobs are taken over by machines and they are not able to find alternative employment quickly.

What Keynes ignored in his analysis is that many of us, probably including himself, have workaholic tendencies and absolutely don’t want to be idle.

For anyone who wonders why multimillionaire chief executives don’t just put their feet up and enjoy their loot, think of it this way: the higher paid someone is, and the more status and admiration they glean from their work, the less incentive they have in taking more leisure time.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, History, Society, Technology

AI is not a threat but an opportunity

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

IS the march of technology and machines something to be fearful of? Andy Haldane, the Bank of England chief economist, thinks we should be wary at the very least. He recently told the BBC that the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) will make many jobs obsolete with far-reaching social and cultural consequences. He predicted a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” on a scale greater than anything seen before. “Each of those [previous industrial revolutions] had a wrenching and lengthy impact on the jobs market, on the lives and livelihoods of large swathes of society,” Mr Haldane said.

There is a distinction to be drawn between the short and long-term impacts of such upheavals. The western world has become immeasurably wealthier since farming techniques drove millions off the land and labour-saving automation took hold at the end of the 18th century. The increased prosperity that followed cannot be gainsaid though economic historians argue over when real living standards really began to rise for the majority. The period of transition was marked by social unrest and repression both here and on the continent.

But it remains the case that significant technological advances, whether they be the coming of the railways or the arrival of the silicon chip, have been accompanied by economic growth and higher per capita GDP.

Arguably, we have been too slow to adapt to automation in the UK, with too many jobs that could be mechanised still being carried out manually. This is one reason behind the UK’s poor productivity and sluggish wage growth, which have been the hallmarks of the economy in recent years. Stopping automation or taxing it as Labour threatens to do would stifle investment and worsen the country’s competitive position.

Mr Haldane was right to have said we cannot be sure whether the new machine age will destroy jobs or create new ones and on what scale; but seeking to stop it, as history shows, would be foolish and futile. Although AI will have a significant impact on manual work, many of the jobs likely to go will be middle-income posts in service industries – but these will be people who should be able to adapt to new challenges. Rather than stand in the way of progress, governments should ensure that their policies are geared towards encouraging the uptake of new skills and retraining. Automation should not be considered a threat but an opportunity.

Standard
Consumer Affairs, Energy, Government, Society, Technology

Smart Meters: Energy giants can remotely cut supply

HOUSEHOLD METERING

ENERGY giants can use smart meters to cut the power supply to homes and force customers to pay their bill up front.

It is now known that suppliers have the power to switch the new digital devices to a prepayment setting without visiting the house.

This would force the occupier to top up their account before they use any gas or electricity – and if their balance runs out, their power could automatically be cut off.

More than 11million smart meters have been installed across the country as part of a national upgrade programme ordered by the Government.

. See also Smart Meters and the ‘hidden agenda’

The new meters automatically send readings to suppliers as often as every half an hour and show customers in pounds and pence exactly how much energy they use.

The aim is to make bills more accurate and help customers save money by encouraging them to reduce their power consumption. Experts warn, however, that smart meters give firms unprecedented power over their customers, including access to reams of data about how and when customers use energy and the ability to control a customer’s supply remotely.

Major energy companies said they had not yet used the feature, but admitted it was possible.

A spokesperson for auto-switching service Look After My Bills, said: “Suppliers now have a frightening level of power to hit customers in the pocket. In the past, the Big Six have proven far too eager to force expensive prepayment meters into people’s homes – despite warnings from OFGEM that they should only ever be used as a last resort.

“If they can switch someone to a prepayment meter with a flick of a switch whenever they choose, this is very worrying for families across the country already struggling with unfair price rises.”

A prepayment meter works like a pay-as-you-go mobile phone in that customers have to top it up with credit before they can use any power.

They are most commonly found in households where the homeowner or occupier is struggling financially, because they provide a better means of controlling how much is spent on energy.

Energy firms said that one of the benefits of new smart meters is that they can switch a meter from prepayment to the more popular credit setting remotely.

Energy watchdog OFGEM has strict rules on when suppliers can force customers to have a prepayment meter.

It is supposed to be a last resort when recovering debt, and suppliers should put households on to repayment plans first.

Currently, power companies need a warrant to install a prepayment meter against a customer’s wishes because they need access to their property. But if suppliers can switch someone’s meter remotely it would remove the need to go through the courts.

Under OFGEM rules energy firms would still have to show they had done everything possible to avoid forcing someone to have a prepayment meter and take steps to ensure that any vulnerable customers are protected.

An OFGEM spokesman said: “For suppliers that are considering if it is appropriate to offer prepayment to smart meter customers, the same rules apply as for those on traditional meters.

“Suppliers must be clear in their communications and establish that prepayment is practical and affordable for a customer. OFGEM would take any breach of these rules by a supplier very seriously.”

Standard