Institute for public policy research seems to think that it is in this paper, the danger of future technology and some new views (automation of the worst time is December 28), but in fact these views have been half a century old. Norbert Wiener pointed out in his book “cybernetics”, written in 1947, published in 1948. His reasoning was that the first industrial revolution – the advent of steam power in the late 18th century – represented a weakening of the muscle, so humans could only find the purpose of controlling the machine, in the factory. The second industrial revolution, through automation and the digital economy in the last century, represented a decline in the human brain. If you degrade a man (or woman) muscle and his brain, what is his selling point in labor?
As IPPR points out, the result is hollowing out in the work world. We still need design engineers, computer programmers and brain surgeons. We probably still need people to clean up offices, streets and toilets. This is intermediate work – the ridiculed “back-office work” – ongoing. The guardian and the typing pool, I wonder?
Obvious fact is that the old model of capitalism – layer cascade folds in credit system, the first is the currency – is based on barter – no longer is feasible, we must think of other things. Is the general basic income the answer, or do we have to devise other ways of motivating people to do what is still left to humanity? I am 83 years old and I have left you something young.
? your story correctly points out that income inequality and job prospects inequality resulting from social forces choosing to use automation. But that’s only half the story. Similar inequalities are rising in the receiving end. When the work and pensions department humiliate those who want to continue to use the paper to prove and charge by cash pension of the elderly, when the station ticket office is closed, the local city council asked the library and return and do not interact with the librarian – and numerous examples of similar – for many poor and vulnerable, basic service is becoming more difficult and greater pressure (and sometimes impossible).
And that doesn’t take into account how these changes make our everyday world a more inhumane and inhumane issue in the name of efficiency. Maybe our brains are more psychologically efficient, and if we’re going to avoid social life?
? the correct report on automation’s potential impact on work refers to a historical context. Luddites destroy machines not because they hate it in principle, but rather as a way of managing its introduction to Labour rather than capital. The task was taken by the union unevenly, and they were still there.
Rafael Samuel (Raphael Samuel) in The Journal “History seminar” (History Workshop Journal) published early “Victorian automation Workshop” (in The Workshop of The World), points out that The process is much more complex than IPPR think. Some Labour processes are not easily mechanized. There are also some that employers can get rid of, and there is no point in providing these workers with low-wage workers who invest in machines.
In other places, the IPPR report is closer to reality – is to increase the productivity (a major problem in the UK economy), or by using cheap, low technical content of skilled workers to replace complicated process to cancel the labor skills. This rarely happens without significant resistance. In short, what people do, not machines, determines the future work world.