The Astral Mirror (6 page)

Although the Luddite terror was broken, the underlying causes of social injustice and poverty slowly, painfully evolved into legal political action. The labor movement grew out of the ashes. So did Marxism.

Frosch compares the growing pains of the First Industrial Revolution with those of today’s introduction of robots into the workplace. Although he would not endorse a term as dramatic as “the Second Industrial Revolution,” he does see parallels.

“The major changes in U.S. agriculture,” he muses, “are—in some sense—a previous experience, a situation in which there was a shift in productivity, driven by technology. A lot of new technology was introduced [to farming], there was a tremendous productivity increase which was accompanied by a change in the size of farms, and a lot of people shifted out of agriculture and went to manufacturing in urban areas. To some extent, they went into the automobile industry.”

Those farmers who migrated to city factories did not have retraining programs to help them. They learned their new skills on the job, or they got fired. The situation is very different today, for their great-grandchildren. Workers who face competition from robots and automated systems demand either job protection or retraining for jobs that are not threatened by robotics.

“There’s no question that robotics is changing the number of people that industry uses,” Frosch agrees. “In particular, it’s changing the number of unskilled workers. Just as in the pick-and-shovel situation, where you now have a difficult time selling your back and shoulders, it’s going to be very difficult to sell unskilled manipulative capabilities or very simple logical and ‘software,’ or thinking skills.”

Assembly-line workers, he points out, have been regarded as relatively unskilled, although they tend to gain skills on the job. Still, it is the repetitive manipulative kinds of assembly-line jobs that are being taken over the fastest by tireless, uncomplaining robots.

In fact, the Robotics Institution of America defines a robot in almost exactly those assembly-line terms. In RIA’s definition, a robot is: “A reprogrammable multi-functional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks.”

But assembly-line workers are not the only ones to hear the faint humming of automated machinery coming closer to them. Micro-computers, the miniature electronic “brains” of robots, are already threatening the white-collar worker, as well. Dr. Christopher Evans pointed out in his book,
The Micro Millennium:
“The vulnerability of the professions [to computerization] is tied up with their special strength—the fact that they act as exclusive repositories and disseminators of specialized knowledge.” Specialized knowledge is exactly what computers are best at: a lifetime accumulation of law books or medical references can be packed into a few floppy disks and put at the fingertips of anyone who knows how to operate a personal computer.

Evans shows that the micro-computers which are invading offices and homes can be programmed to handle income tax forms, school assignments, even simple medical questions. Doctor, lawyer, teacher, and other white-collar professionals are already finding their jobs—and power— being eroded by micro-computers.

In the automobile industry itself, white-collar workers have felt the sharp edge of automation’s ax cut just as deeply into their ranks as those of their blue-collar brethren. In the first two years of the 1980s the auto companies laid off some 55,000 white-collar workers, about twenty-seven percent of their non-production employees.

Dr. Morgan B. Coker, chairman of the Department of Business Administration and Economics at Francis Marion College, in South Carolina, has pointed out that microcomputers are allowing companies to trim the fat from their middle-management ranks. “More than attrition was taking place,” he wrote of the white-collar layoffs in many diverse industries. “Businesses were stripping away layers of management and firing office workers to get ‘lean and mean.’ The micro-computer is a major force in the new style of American management...”

Frosch says that GM factory workers have accepted robots quite well. A worker taken off the assembly line to supervise a robot that does his old job has actually moved a step higher in the world. “They give the robots names, like ‘Big Bertha,’” he told me.

But what about the workers who have been laid off, from the automobile industry and elsewhere, and will not be rehired because automation and robotics have eliminated their jobs? Union Pacific Corporation, for example, laid off 6000 of its 44,000 workers over the past few years. James H. Evans, chairman of the railroad company, said in May 1983, “Will they come back? The answer is probably not.” He pointed out that Union Pacific is carrying forty percent more freight tonnage than the line did twenty years ago, with half as many employees. “If we had the same number of employees we had then, we would have priced ourselves out of the market. How have we done it? Automation.”

For the workers who have lost their jobs to the machines, government and industry offers a variety of retraining programs. But some workers resist retraining, and try to hold out on unemployment and other welfare benefits until they are called back to resume their original jobs. Yet it is clear that most of these jobs will never be held by human beings again.

Meanwhile, whole new industries are opening up, especially in the electronics field. National statistics show that even while unemployment soared to more than ten percent of the workforce in the early 1980s, the worst it has been since the Depression of the 1930s, total employment in the United States continued to grow. And in 1982, for the first time in America’s history, jobs in the service sector of the economy outnumbered jobs in manufacturing. But the jobs offered there are for skilled technicians and engineers, not laid-off assembly-line workers or middle-management bureaucrats.

Frosch sees a basic change in the character of work itself, a change that may be dangerous. “We will go through a period in which relatively unskilled labor gets squeezed out. The question is, what happens to such workers?”

In the First Industrial Revolution, workers squeezed out of the hand crafts and farms went to the cities and were absorbed into the new manufacturing industries. Or starved.

“But where do you go when unskilled workers are replaced by skilled machines?” Frosch believes that unskilled manufacturing workers are not going to be absorbed into the growing market for services, for the same reason that robots are not going to perform services such as barbering and hand crafts. It takes human skills to accomplish such tasks, skills that the robots do not yet have—and neither do the unskilled workers who are being replaced by robots.

Some economists suggest that the new industries created by high technology will create as many jobs as those lost to automation and robotics. But not for the same people.

“What I don’t see,” Frosch says, “is what happens to the people who are now non-trained, and are not easily trainable.” There may well be, he fears, “a part of the population that is not very educated... not skilled, and who don’t seem to be trainable.” In other words, a permanent underclass of unemployables.

Part of the problem is that many workers have tacitly assumed that their job “belongs” to them for life; that even though they may be temporarily laid off during economic downturns, they will be rehired when the economy improves, and make up for the lost time by demanding higher wages and stronger job-protection rules.

Perhaps labor and management can work out suitable attrition policies, in which the company promises not to fire any members of its existing workforce because of automation, in return for labor’s understanding that new workers will not be recruited, and when a worker quits or retires, he or she will not be replaced by a new hire. One problem with such a policy, however, is that the money spent in maintaining the human workforce is money that cannot be invested in new machinery. Investing the money in robots could well be more productive for the company than maintaining its human workforce.

The problem of future employment is mainly a problem of education. “There has always been a group of people who, for one reason or another, did not get educated,” Frosch says. “We have never completely succeeded in finding out how to deal with the whole population in terms of education.” Up until now, there have always been productive jobs for uneducated, unskilled workers. But that day is going fast.

“Do we end up with a
de facto
class structure?” he worries, seeing a nation with a permanently unemployed and unemployable caste. “That’s a bad business. It’s morally bad, it’s socially bad... I don’t think it’s enough to simply say that it’s a social justice problem and we have to see that somehow everybody gets fed.”

Very few thinkers have even considered how to handle the human and social impact of the robot invasion. The engineers are busy designing better machines, the entrepreneurs are carving out new markets for robots, the business managers are trading off the costs of buying robots against the productivity gains they stand to produce, labor leaders are trying to protect their workers from robot-induced unemployment.

The trend of this Second Industrial Revolution, which is what the oncoming wave of robotics really amounts to, is quite clear. No matter how the experts may try to ignore the facts, or argue against them, the robots are getting smarter, cheaper, and more skilled. They will be taking over more and more jobs as the years go on. Inevitably, most of the jobs that can be done twice the same way—be they in a factory or an office—will be done by robots and/or computers.

Where does that leave the workers? Not everyone put out of work by automation can be absorbed into new jobs. A forty-year-old assembly-line worker is not going to blossom into an electronics technician. A young secretary is not going to turn into a computer programmer after six weeks of retraining. Besides, those jobs will also be threatened by robotics and automation, eventually. The machines are learning how to reproduce themselves.

Congressman Don Fuqua, chairman of the House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee, is one of the few politicians who is doing something about the robot revolution, rather than merely making speeches about “high tech.”

Fuqua has drafted legislation that calls for a doublepronged approach to the problems—and opportunities—of robotics. To combat robot-induced unemployment, Fuqua wants the National Science Foundation to begin training programs for workers. He foresees a program that starts at the $5 million level and increases to $10 million per year through 1990.

A human job might be replaced by a robot, Fuqua maintains, but “somebody’s got to operate the robot, and keep it working. And somebody’s got to build that robot.” What is needed, then, is to help workers to elevate their levels of skills so that they can take part in the robot revolution, rather than be sidelined by it.

“There’s a whole new shift in employment skills, to a higher level. There are a lot of different jobs that will be created by the use of robots,” he says.

Fuqua admits that some workers will not be retrainable, for reasons varying from age to ambition. “They may not desire to have their skills upgraded.”

The legislation he is proposing does not deal merely with the unemployment problems created by robotics. The other side of Fuqua’s approach sets up a robot leasing corporation, funded initially with federal money, which will help to provide the capital for businessmen to obtain robots and bring them into industry.

“The robot leasing corporation is based somewhat on the existing Farm Credit Administration and Comsat Corporation,” Fuqua says. “It will be a quasi-government corporation. Its role will be to stimulate the demand for robots, and therefore the production of robots.”

Fuqua sees federal funding of $20 million per year, to provide low-interest loans to businesses, as “seed” money for the leasing corporation. Private investment will be encouraged, and will provide the bulk of the corporation’s funds. Eventually the corporation will pay back the government’s original loans with interest. Thus robots may begin to put money
into
the national treasury.

The robot leasing corporation, according to Fuqua, can “make it attractive for people to install certain types of robots, depending on the needs of their companies. It can be a source of capital to finance the lease [or purchase] of robots.”

Fuqua’s legislation, which is also backed by Cong. Albert Gore, Jr. of Tennessee and George Brown of California, among others, can help to provide investment capital for the transition to robotics while also cushioning the unemployment this transition is bound to cause.

Fuqua sees robots gradually entering the workplace, and being most valuable in jobs that are too dangerous or difficult for humans to attempt: cleaning up radioactive nuclear powerplants, for example, or fighting fires.

“I see robots moving in everywhere,” says Albus, who has spent the past ten years designing robots for the National Bureau of Standards. “Some places sooner than others, but practically everywhere sooner or later.”

He points out, “Robots create wealth. That makes the society that builds them and uses them able to maintain a much higher standard of living. This creates demand for expanded numbers of products and makes it possible to afford to hire the people to supply those products.”

This leads to a contradiction. On the one hand, thinkers such as Albus see robots creating wealth and a demand for more goods and thus more jobs. On the other hand, they also foresee new robots eventually taking over those jobs.

Albus argues, however, that “the main restriction to employment is not the amount of work to be done in the world. The amount of work that needs to be done is virtually infinite. The question is, can you afford to hire people to do the work?”

Considering all the tasks that
can
be done in a society, from repairing roads and picking up trash to bringing expert medical care to the poor and exploring outer space, Albus says, “The real fallacy is thinking that there’s a fixed amount of work to be done, and if robots do some of it there won’t be enough work to go around for humans. God, the world is filled with things that need to be done— just walk around your neighborhood and you can make a list of three hundred things that need to be done and can occupy a whole army of people to do them.”