"Daron Acemoglu, an influential
economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been making the
case against what he describes as “excessive automation.”
The economywide payoff of investing
in machines and software has been stubbornly elusive. But he says the rising
inequality resulting from those investments, and from the public policy that
encourages them, is crystal clear.
Half or more of the increasing gap
in wages among American workers over the last 40 years is attributable to the
automation of tasks formerly done by human workers, especially men without
college degrees, according to some of his recent research.
Globalization and the weakening of
unions have played roles. “But the most important factor is automation,” Mr.
Acemoglu said. And automation-fueled inequality is “not an act of God or
nature,” he added. “It’s the result of choices corporations and we as a society
have made about how to use technology.”
Mr. Acemoglu, a wide-ranging scholar
whose research makes him one of most cited economists in academic journals, is
hardly the only prominent economist arguing that computerized machines and
software, with a hand from policymakers, have contributed significantly to the
yawning gaps in incomes in the United States. Their numbers are growing, and
their voices add to the chorus of criticism surrounding the Silicon Valley
giants and the unchecked advance of technology.
Paul Romer, who won a Nobel in
economic science for his work on technological innovation and economic growth,
has expressed alarm at the runaway market power and influence of the big tech
companies. “Economists taught: ‘It’s the market. There’s nothing we can do,’” he said in an interview last year.
“That’s really just so wrong.”
Anton Korinek, an economist at the
University of Virginia, and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economist at Columbia
University, have written a paper, “Steering Technological Progress,” which
recommends steps from nudges for entrepreneurs to tax changes to pursue
“labor-friendly innovations.”
Erik Brynjolfsson, an economist at
Stanford, is a technology optimist in general. But in an essay to be published
this spring in Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, he warns of “the Turing trap.” The phrase is a reference to the
Turing test, named for Alan Turing, the English pioneer in artificial
intelligence, in which the goal is for a computer program to engage in a
dialogue so convincingly that it is indistinguishable from a human being.
For decades, Mr. Brynjolfsson said,
the Turing test — matching human performance — has been the guiding metaphor
for technologists, businesspeople and policymakers in thinking about A.I. That
leads to A.I. systems that are designed to replace workers rather than enhance
their performance. “I think that’s a mistake,” he said.
The concerns raised by these
economists are getting more attention in Washington at a time when the giant
tech companies are already being attacked on several fronts. Officials
regularly criticize the companies for not doing enough to protect user privacy
and say the companies amplify misinformation. State and federal lawsuits accuse
Google and Facebook of violating antitrust laws, and Democrats are trying to
rein in the market power of the industry’s biggest companies through new laws.
Mr. Acemoglu testified in November
before the House Select Committee on
Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth at a hearing on
technological innovation, automation and the future of work. The committee,
which got underway in June, will hold hearings and gather information for a
year and report its findings and recommendations.
Despite the partisan gridlock in
Congress, Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat and the chairman of
the committee, is confident the committee can find common ground on some steps
to help workers, like increased support for proven job-training programs.
“There’s nothing partisan about
economic disparity,” Mr. Himes said, referring to the harm to millions of
American families regardless of their political views.
Economists point to the postwar
years, from 1950 to 1980, as a golden age when technology forged ahead and
workers enjoyed rising incomes.
But afterward, many workers started
falling behind. There was a steady advance of crucial automating technologies —
robots and computerized machines on factory floors, and specialized software in
offices. To stay ahead, workers required new skills.
Yet the technological shift evolved
as growth in postsecondary education slowed and companies began spending less
on training their workers. “When technology, education and training move
together, you get shared prosperity,” said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at
Harvard. “Otherwise, you don’t.”
Increasing international trade
tended to encourage companies to adopt automation strategies. For example,
companies worried by low-cost competition from Japan and later China invested
in machines to replace workers.
Today, the next wave of technology
is artificial intelligence. And Mr. Acemoglu and others say it can be used
mainly to assist workers, making them more productive, or to supplant them.
Mr. Acemoglu, like some other
economists, has altered his view of technology over time. In economic theory,
technology is almost a magic ingredient that both increases the size of the
economic pie and makes nations richer. He recalled working on a textbook more
than a decade ago that included the standard theory. Shortly after, while doing
further research, he had second thoughts.
“It’s too restrictive a way of
thinking,” he said. “I should have been more open-minded.”
Mr. Acemoglu is no enemy of
technology. Its innovations, he notes, are needed to address society’s biggest
challenges, like climate change, and to deliver economic growth and rising
living standards. His wife, Asuman Ozdaglar, is the head of the electrical
engineering and computer science department at M.I.T.
But as Mr. Acemoglu dug deeply into
economic and demographic data, the displacement effects of technology became
increasingly apparent. “They were greater than I assumed,” he said. “It’s made
me less optimistic about the future.”
Mr. Acemoglu’s estimate that half or
more of the increasing gap in wages in recent decades stemmed from technology
was published last year with his frequent collaborator, Pascual Restrepo, an
economist at Boston University. The conclusion was based on an analysis of
demographic and business data that details the declining share of economic
output that goes to workers as wages and the increased spending on machinery
and software.
Mr. Acemoglu and Mr. Restrepo have
published papers on the impact of robots and the
adoption of “so-so technologies,” as well as the recent analysis of technology
and inequality.
So-so technologies replace workers
but do not yield big gains in productivity. As examples, Mr. Acemoglu cites
self-checkout kiosks in grocery stores and automated customer service over the
phone.
Today, he sees too much investment
in such so-so technologies, which helps explain the sluggish productivity
growth in the economy. By contrast, truly significant technologies create new
jobs elsewhere, lifting employment and wages.
The rise of the auto industry, for
example, generated jobs in car dealerships, advertising, accounting and
financial services.
Market forces have produced
technologies that help people do their work rather than replace them. In
computing, the examples include databases, spreadsheets, search engines and
digital assistants.
But Mr. Acemoglu insists that a
hands-off, free-market approach is a recipe for widening inequality, with all
its attendant social ills. One important policy step, he recommends, is fair
tax treatment for human labor. The tax rate on labor, including payroll and
federal income tax, is 25 percent. After a series of tax breaks, the current
rate on the costs of equipment and software is near zero.
Well-designed education and training
programs for the jobs of the future, Mr. Acemoglu said, are essential. But he
also believes that technology development should be steered in a more
“human-friendly direction.” He takes inspiration from the development of
renewable energy over the last two decades, which has been helped by government
research, production subsidies and social pressure on corporations to reduce
carbon emissions.
“We need to redirect technology so
it works for people,” Mr. Acemoglu said, “not against them.”"
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą