In order to answer this question, we must consider three scenarios, a world where all jobs have been automated, the transition period and whether we may be able to achieve such society or not. Coppola in (Westlake, 2014) claims that the outcome of further technological implementation will depend on the willingness of people to give up job security and how good the system is at educating them. In practice all socio, political and economic theories have failed and become versions of the same thing. In this way, they are all utopic. For the first time in history humans have a realistic possibility of achieving a fairer society. The key to this is automation, freeing people to focus on more aspirational and higher social goals.

The first part of this essay will look at technology in history, looking at the question presented in this essay in the past and establishing technology advance as a fundamental way social progress. Then it moves on to introduce the ideal world that automation could award us, analysing the potential benefits and ways in which it could be achieved as well as considering the also very realistic elements that may impede to achieve this and the type of society this would form. The next part talks about the transition process, most relevant to our present days and the last part is an analysis on the process itself.

Concerns about labour displacement is currently a recurrent feature in the news. Arthur Hadley (1986) as cited in (Mokyr et al., 2015), claimed that there was clear increase in employment rates precisely in the areas where machines had been introduced, supporting this renown statement “The well-being of workers requires that progress should go on, and it cannot do so without causing temporary displacement of laborers.” (Clark, 1915).

The theoretical framework for this paper is primarily built on Mokyr et al The history of technological anxiety and the future of economic growth: Is this time different? (2015) and Avent et al Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy (2015).

Society has always been influenced by technology, it creates uncertainty and this generates cultural anxiety. People do not know how technology can be controlled, there is a clear trajectory towards the increase of automation across all sectors which we can expect to be an uneven and painful process for some workers. (Mokyr et al., 2015). In the long run, however, as history shows, we can also expect technology to benefit people. This will bring enormous changes at all levels of society, even geographical as cities may continue to grow. A major effect of task automation will be on the innate endowment of labour of humans, as their work would no longer be required and they would no longer need to work. However, working is part of the self-realisation process as people and social beings. During this transition, humans will be faced with social challenges to support each other and to develop new life meanings, similarly to those aristocrats who reinvented leisure when they were confronted with having abundant financial wealth and no work obligations. (Westlake, 2014, Smith, 1937).

Economies are likely to focalise in local regions, implying a retreat of globalization. The political reasons of this are not directly linked to this paper, however, universal automation would increment this effect as resources would be sought locally and services provided also within the region. (Guy, 2009). The way in which governments react will be crucial to ensure the success of automation at a global scale. A scientific approach not to management per se, instead to the organising of labour and adapted to the needs of society will be key. (Taylor, 1919, Drury, 1918).

The question of automation being linked to the potential of people losing their jobs is presented as a new issue, it is also understood as a particular form of technology and we tend to think of robots doing all kinds of jobs which substitute humans. However, we have used technology to improve our quality of life and to make our jobs easier all through our history. The first major technological progress was in agriculture, we were able to divert water from rivers and control their caudal, as well as to use horses to drag a plough, these technologies allowed one farmer to look after a larger piece of land which generated a displacement of the work and expansion of the industry. (Forman, 2007). Nisbets points out, the idea of progress is not a new concept as it was already discussed in ancient times. (Nisbet, 1980, Chui et al., 2017). When asking this question, we are also considering potential possibilities, although we cannot predict the future of economy. (Guy, 2009).

In the one hand society often opposes new technologies, we fear what we do not know, in the other hand we link technology to the expectation of progress. A particular characteristic of those who allowed our society to advance, all throughout our arguably short history, is a spirit of adventure, a desire to delve into the unknown. From this came several misfortunes and horrendous acts such as wars, yet, in the grander scheme, it allowed us to make a giant leap, from simply living beings to self-conscious individuals capable of producing insightful pieces of art and discussing political arguments to the betterment of society. (Avent, R. In: Westlake, 2014) Inequality has mostly been a manageable problem so far in history, this is due to humans having the innate capacity to learn and to work which sustains economy because in the basic need for trading, not one single person can have everything, which means that we all need each other to be able to get what we need and want. This is a form of capital, a human capital and so far we have had a competitive advantage over machines. A competitive advantage relies on the correct fit between what a firm can offer and the needs of the market, humans have been able to maintain such advantage as labour displacement caused by automation has also generated new jobs in the process of eliminating others., (Smith, N. In: Westlake, 2014, Goyer, 2006). Mokyr et al (2015) build on the law of comparative advantage to claim that even if automation takes a considerable number of jobs, there would still be ‘tasks’, which we should understand as jobs, for most workers. The speculation of Mokyr and his colleagues ignores two fundamental aspects in this discussion. One is that automation opens a range of possibilities for new society models, a fully automated workforce would force us to question what society is, what the individual requires from society and what society requires from the individual. It could also lead to a fairer society not based on capital, which will be discussed later on. The other is that efficiency prevails over other costs, especially as the market becomes more oligopolistic. (Chandler, 1984). John Maynard Keynes (1933) sets out a related view of technological progress in his essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren.” Keynes glimpsed a far-off technological horizon, where “for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem—how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” The scientific method presented by Taylor made sense from the perspective of the work that needed to be done, it clashed with the particular needs of the workers as well as making them into “automatons”. (Drury, 1918, Taylor, 1919).The issue was not then with the proven efficacy of this method but with having humans doing the work. Complete automation of all tasks worldwide would allow the human race to level the balance of power and needs. Humans have basic needs for shelter, food, safety and health, these are provided in interactions with society. A power struggle occurs because there are people who have control over the supply of those basic needs. If we were to remove the power from these people by awarding all jobs to machines, humans would not rely on others to obtain their basic needs. Consequently, economy itself would become somewhat redundant. It would not disappear, it would be an economy not based in trading, it would still require for resources to be managed, a task which would also be done by a machine. Whilst there would be a countless number of physically independent machines carrying out all sort of tasks such as cleaning or performing surgery, they would all ultimately form part of the same central machine brain, there would be no need for this one to be separated and in fact it would be beneficial all information being held in one place. We currently have information spread across various computers because we have concerns over privacy and safety as well as strategic interests, we have different countries and different companies. However, The Machine would need such separation as those interests would be irrelevant, it would be beneficial for example for the purpose of medical research as it would contain the medical history of every human being in the world. If we accept the principle that we realise ourselves as humans through work, Turney (In: Westlake, 2014) worries that eliminating the exploitation that comes from work would also eliminate the need that humans have for working and contributing to society. Hobbies are a form of work, they require a certain level of commitment and skill which must be mastered. Indeed, there is an infinite number of activities that could lead to self-realisation. (Elster and Moene, 1989), although this does not necessarily mean a life of leisure as we would likely develop responsibilities and build on existing ones, such as raising our own children. Whilst this society would have humans not carry any productive work, it would still require community, rules and government. A government administered by machines and ruled by

humans. By having no substantial needs and machines to support research, humans may be able to learn to build stronger community ties and better global relationships. As there would be no companies, nor trading, there would only be one central firm supported by the machine and responding to local particular needs. This administration would have the same attributes of a regular firm, it would be a legal entity to have a clear understanding of its obligations; maintaining a physical presence, accumulating knowledge and skills with no need for capital; as already mentioned it would only need to be one sole central system and also working for profit, although this profit would not be to support a capitalist economy, instead it would be aimed at the distribution of goods. Standard trade theory indicates “that all countries gain from reducing (or eliminating) barriers to international trade in goods and services”. The machine would likely maintain this principle in the form of making goods available and knowledge globally available. (Chandler, 1984, Guy, 2009). This is where the main theoretical transfer would occur as humans would need to collaborate in the governing side of society, following the principles of global trading. Eliminating frontiers and allowing global trading to occur does not only make products internationally available, it also expands markets and stimulates economies. This is of course not taking into account issues that come from power struggles in the international trading arena, instead, it is looking at it conceptually. Having this same attitude to governing would strengthen social structures by locating potential issues and addressing major concerns. (Guy, 2009). In the one hand automation leads to labour displacement which this already raises a number of concerns, in the other hand we need to examine the potential benefits of further technological implementation in the work place with an objective mind. We must acknowledge that our capacity is not limitless, we may not be able to cure all diseases or figure out space travel. A machine is able to perform single tasks more efficiently and reliably than a human, humans have developed machines that perform simultaneous complex tasks which humans are incapable of performing because a machine is stronger and can process information faster, Kasparov famously lost to a computer playing chess which is obvious because the machine has the real potential of holding every possible game and adapt in a fraction of a second where regular humans are not capable of this and likely no human ever will. (IBM, 2012). Ultimately, automation may be able to provide us with some answers to social struggles that we have carried since the inception of civilisation. We struggle with power and distribution of wealth. Adam Smith as cited in Mokyr et all (1776, p. 385. 2015) “The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations . . . generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.”. This is a generalisation, not a fair assessment, those who are cultured, educated and reflective and those who are not are vulnerable to different types of manipulation. (Newman, 1997). However, it does raise another issue, the tasks that may be first eliminated by automation, namely repetitive and manual labour type, can be linked to certain social concerns such as the safety of the workers and their personal growth. There are tasks that are unsafe and not stimulant to a human. Marx saw this form of labour as inefficient, exploitative and alienating. By removing those tasks, we would free those who normally conduct them to do other things. These other things can suit all intellectual and physical capacities. We may accept the premise that we realise ourselves as humans through work, however, this work does not have to be remunerated, it may well be a hobby. Therefore, the concern is not what people would do, instead it is how to maintain power and wealth distribution. As Coppola points out, technological progress is always ultimately beneficial, even if in “the short term it causes hardship”. Automation in farms has permitted families to operate without using their children as workforce (Coppola, F. In: Westlake, 2014), which permitted them to not only have a better health, it also permitted them to go to school and a more educated society can generate further progress. Mokyr et al (2015) note that transitions are disruptive and painful for some members of society and this one should be also. Understandably, this uncertainty causes anxiety, Mokyr et al (2015) focus on what they consider to be the three main concerns: the first concern is that the use of machines will lead to workers being replaced by machines, consequently to mass unemployment and an increase in social inequality; the second concern is regarding the moral implications that automation carries with itself, considering it dehumanizing with the understanding that humans realise themselves as such through work; and a third concern is simply that the major technological advances that we are capable of have already been achieved.

Further to these, there are two other major concerns to ensure social stability: one is that machines would have surpassed all levels of potential human intelligence and if for whichever reason they were to break, humans would not be able to repair them. The other concern is that this society would have to ensure that all needs are covered at all times, if a need were to arise that could not be cared by a machine it would lead to trading and this to the upsetting of the balance of power. Automation will eliminate very few occupations in the near future, it will however affect to some extent almost all jobs. This is a process and we cannot expect it to develop evenly across all sectors. Current technologies could be used to automate at least 30 per cent of the tasks of 60% of all occupations. To understand this, we must focus on the activity rather than the occupation. We tend to consider that entire jobs could be immediately automated when it may not be that simple, for example a grocery store could use machines to carry out several tasks, including stocktaking but they may not be able to deal with the freshness of an organic product, in this way, not the entire occupation is automated but some of the tasks. (Chui et al., 2017). As well as automation is a gradual process, technological advancement has never been deployed in a universal way all at once, it happens gradually and those who develop it have the advantage over the rest and can establish the rules. (Waldman, S. In: Westlake, 2014). Clusters are an example of this, power is concentrated in specific geographic locations in the world where a particular firm works on technological development and attracts other firms to these same areas. The knowledge accumulated in these regions take time to spread geographically. By being the initiators they have a competitive advantage over late comers and have the opportunity to establish ground rules. (Breschi and Malerba, 2001). They also make us question legislations, recently Uber lost a case in UK Court which forces the company to treat drivers as employees not self-employed. (O’Connor et al., 2017, Court, 2016). We cannot rely solely on a system that depends on the good will of those in government, as Mokyr et al (2015) point out, the resistance presented by the government to machines due to the technological unemployment they caused in the nineteenth century, did not match with the complaints regarding long working hours and the disappearance of industrial towns. We must find a solution that satisfies the economic and social anxieties. This is ultimately a social issue, it is not a question of whether it is feasible, economically or technologically, it is simply a matter of whether we are capable of evolving socially and embrace the potential benefits and progress that technology could award us. It is not the fact that a task has been automated or technology itself that may cause labour displacement (Coppola, F. In: Westlake, 2014), in the same way that there was fear for losing jobs in the early 19th century, to later realise that while technology made certain jobs redundant it also created several others (Mokyr et al., 2015); today we have a similar situation, but we must focus on the social implications of this and how to handle the transition. Some of these workers may be able to be retrained or may have transferable skills that can be used in other sectors. However, not all people may will be able to be retrained, particularly as the training becomes more complex. Even if we achieve to arrive to that society where robots do all jobs and humans can simply live, there would be a transition process which is unlikely to be shorter than a few live times. Consequently, at least for this period, we will need to find alternative ways to sustain a society still based on capital with an increasing number of individuals who become unemployed. Let us consider those workers that cannot be absorbed by another sector, be that because lack of demand or transferable skills. We are considering how to distribute wealth in a society where not all individuals generate wealth. Bill Gates proposes during an interview at QT the introduction of a specific tax band on companies that use robots to replace human workers, in order to compensate for the loss of income tax that would otherwise come from the worker and use this tax to support retraining this worker and fulfil other gap. (Delaney, 2017). To overcome wealth concentration and maintain the circulation of capital Smith (In: Westlake, 2014) proposes a society where individuals are their own companies, with their labour force formed by an “army of robots” and some families that would not find beneficial to become their own company may find a better fit to own stock in other companies. Furthermore, Smith (In: Westlake, 2014) also suggests that the endowment of labour, innate to all humans could also be an endowment of capital where the government provides a salary to citizens from the moment they turn eighteen years old. Housewives or househusbands do not receive any of the benefits of an employed worker, there is no salary, insurance or any kind of leave because they are not legally employees. They fulfil however a fundamental role in society. Cleaning, cooking, child caring, getting groceries and looking after the

household budget. All essential to a functioning society. Dirty houses in a city would lead to pests and fast spread diseases, society would not be able to cope with providing care for all the many children that it has and an economically imprudent society would provoke a financial crisis from which may not be able to recover. This is an example of how we can function as a society without the need for payment, the income is dependent on a partner which in our example of a future society would be the government.

Some families have in practice outsourced this job, they use nurseries, hire cleaning services and share the tasks and costs between the parents. The so called kitchen test is evidence of the ramifications of technology not only in a direct way to the user, also to the rest of society. During the 1950s only 25 per cent of married women had a job outside of home, this figure went up to 60 per cent in the year 2000. This was possible, in big part thanks to the implementation of household appliances. (Avent, R. In: Westlake, 2014). The severity of this transition will require fast action from governments to cushion blows suffered in increasingly larger sections of the population, and at the same time to allow it to maintain its course towards a potentially fairer and more advanced society.

We have a choice. We can continue with the ways of the past, competing with each other and with robots, valuing producing over caring, and insisting that everyone must produce in order to live. Or we can embrace the opportunities that technological changes bring, cooperating with robots and with each other to achieve more than we could individually, sharing work and its rewards equitably so that everyone has the means to live, and learning to recognise and reward activities that are currently unpaid and skills that are currently unrecognised. I hope we choose the path of change. (Coppola, F. pp. 36. In: Westlake, 2014)

Conclusion

We have been fighting the same basic social issues for arguably 30 thousand years, it seems reasonable to think that we may be unable to resolve them, machines are our best hope to eliminate the cause of these issues, power and need. Partial automation would be part of the automating process, however, the final aim should be to be fully automated, the 100% of all jobs, if there are any need to work we would immediately have a power struggle which would upset the balance of this new society. This will be the biggest challenge we face.

Technology is directly linked to social progress, even if in the process of implementing a new technology it affects the lives of some citizens negatively, ultimately provides major social benefits. Machines for cleaning allowed, in part, a fairer society by freeing married women from home caring duties, a liberation that were not going to be supported by their male counterparts. This is a historical transition process and as such we can expect it to cause intermediate issues such as labour displacement. (Avent, R. In: Westlake, 2014).

Those who first develop a technology have a competitive advantage and the power to set the rules. Having the power to control progress may mean that automation will not be permitted to evolve to its full potential. However, the greed for cheaper labour and the search for a more scientific management method may accidently push it over the edge and provoke a fully automated workforce.

Ultimately, we are not able to know the answer to our question or predict the future of economy. “But we will measure its progress in our own discomfort”. (Avent, R. In: Westlake, 2014).

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Primary Sources
  • GUY, F. 2009. The global environment of business, Oxford University Press.
  • MOKYR, J., VICKERS, C. & ZIEBARTH, N. L. 2015. The history of technological anxiety and the future of economic growth: Is this time different? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 31-50.
  • WESTLAKE, S. 2014. Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy.
  • AVENT, R. 2014. The Revolution Will Be Uncomfortable. In: WESTLAKE, S. 2014. Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy.
  • COPPOLA, F. 2014. Automation and Jobs: Competition or Cooperation? In: WESTLAKE, S. 2014. Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy.
  • SMITH, N. 2014. The End of Labour: How To Protect Workers from the Rise of Robots. In: WESTLAKE, S. 2014. Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy.
  • GUY, F. 2014. Technological Change, Bargaining Power and Wages. In: WESTLAKE, S. 2014. Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy.
  • TURNEY, J. 2014. Our Work Here Is Done: Robot Futures in Fiction. In: WESTLAKE, S. 2014. Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy.
  • WALDMAN, S. 2014. The Option Value of the Human. In: WESTLAKE, S. 2014. Our Work Here is Done: Visions of a Robot Economy.

Secondary Sources

• BRESCHI, S. & MALERBA, F. 2001. The geography of innovation and economic clustering: some introductory notes. Industrial and corporate change, 10, 817-833.
• CHANDLER, A. D. 1984. The emergence of managerial capitalism. Business History Review, 58, 473-503.
• CHUI, M., MANYIKA, J. & MIREMADI, M. 2017. Where machines could replace humans–and where they can’t (yet).
• CLARK, J. B. 1915. Essentials of economic theory, Ludwig von Mises Institute.
• COURT, H. U. 2016. Employment Tribunal between Uber Britannia Ltd and Workers.
• DELANEY, K. J. 2017. The robot that takes your job should pay taxes, says Bill Gates.
• DRURY, H. B. 1918. Scientific management: A history and criticism, Columbia university.
• ELSTER, J. & MOENE, K. O. 1989. Alternatives to Capitalism, Cambridge University Press.
• FORMAN, P. 2007. The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. History and technology, 23, 1-152.
• GOYER, M. 2006. Varieties of institutional investors and national models of capitalism: The transformation of corporate governance in France and Germany. Politics & Society, 34, 399-430.
• 2012. IBM100 – Deep Blue [Online]. IBM Corporation. Available: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/deepblue/ [Accessed].
• KEYNES, J. M. 1933. Economic possibilities for our grandchildren (1930). Essays in persuasion, 358-73.
• NISBET, R. A. 1980. History of the Idea of Progress, Transaction publishers.
• O’CONNOR, S., CROFT, J. & MURGIA, M. 2017. Uber drivers win UK legal battle for workers’ rights. Financial Times.
• SMITH, A. 1937. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Рипол Классик.
• TAYLOR, F. W. 1919. The principles of scientific management, Harper & brothers.