One Finite Planet

One Finite Planet

Robots & Job Terminations

Date Published:

terminatorJob Terminators?

There is a virtual barrage of reports warning that robots and automation could displace 40% to  50% of the workforce in the next few decades.

During the almost 300 years of the growth age, new jobs have emerged to take the place of those replaced by automation.  Will this continue, or as many suggest, will it be different this time?

This post Reviews:

  • How have new jobs emerged in the past and will this continue?
  • Is it really different this time?
  • Will new jobs automatically emerge to replace those ‘terminated’ by automation.
  • What other alternatives are there?

How have new jobs emerged in the past?

It is worth reviewing how new jobs society has coped in the with the automation and job displacement.  I have read through previous analysis such that presented here. Most reports cover thoroughly what new jobs have been created, but give real analysis on the mechanism that creates the new jobs.  As there are several factors, and testing theories is problematic, listing possible reasons is more appropriate than choosing which factor makes the difference.  Factors of note include:

  • most technology development happened during the growth age, a time when the societies making the technological advances were going through rapid population growth, and were forming empires and expanding into a whole new world.
  • the societies experiencing the change to new technology were also experiencing significant income growth for most of the population and experienced the emergence of the middle class
  • Technology has previously had no ‘intelligence’, and has therefore been limited to replacing mundane repetitive tasks, and still needed people to supervise and play a role

So far, the experience from the industrial or ‘growth age’ has been a link between increasing prosperity and the creating of new jobs providing a replacement of jobs replaced by technology.   Technology itself has provided some of the growth, but the expansion of Europe to the ‘new world’ with the associated population growth also may have played a significant role.

Is it Really Different this time?

Only time will tell if the result is different, but certainly the circumstances are different. Consider:

  • Population growth has slowed significantly
  • There is no simple repetition of the emergence of the middle class.
  • There are no ‘new lands’ creating expansion of ‘civilisation’ into new areas.  (There is no place to grow a new USA )
  • Developed countries already have an established ‘middle class’ and economic development is currently no longer providing a huge lift in living standards for the majority of the population
  • Technology now has intelligence and can now replace even doctors and lawyers and highly skilled professions.

Yes, it clearly is different!

Will new jobs Automatically emerge to replace those terminated by automation?

Opinions as to whether the above differences will mean that jobs are no longer created automatically vary.  The world economic forum has reports (summary here) suggests that job creation cannot keep pace.   I suggest the end of the expansion of the growth age does mean that new job creation will no longer be automatic.   The world economy has not recovered from the conditions that lead to the GFC, and I suggest will not recover without changes to the economic system.  This is the environment for this new wave of automation:  an economy already unable to deal with fundamental changes.   In these conditions, active steps will be needed to create the new jobs.

What Other alternatives are there.

Technology means the work will still be done and the wealth still created.  But we also rely on jobs for wealth distribution and personal fulfilment.   Suggestions such as a basic income help with wealth distribution but potentially create significant social problems from lack of self esteem.   The major problem to these schemes is the free trade pressures may simply make such measures impossible.

The only solutions involve more troubling isolationism and will be discussed in a future post.


A NEW study has found that almost 50 per cent of the work force will be replaced by robots within the next 20 years. Find out which jobs will be the first to go.

SCIENCE fiction writers have long anticipated technology taking over the workforce but it seems the reality is close upon us.

A new study has found that 47 per cent of jobs in the US are “at risk” of being automated within the next 20 years.

The researchers analysed more than 700 jobs listed on a careers website along with the skills and education required for each position and weighed them against how easily they could be automated and what engineering obstacles were preventing them from being computerised.

Specifically the researchers say that “low-skill and low-wage jobs” will be the first to go.

“Our model predicts that most workers in transportation and logistics occupations, together with the bulk of office and administrative support workers, and labour in production occupations, are at risk,” the researchers wrote in the Oxford University study titled “The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation.[link dead]” Robots Take Over the Workforce.

Table of Contents


Flawed Australian voice of Indigenous People referendum: The irony of a voice campaign that failed to listen.

A tragic lost opportunity. Why didn’t those proposing the voice make changes to remove ambiguity and eliminated enough of the negative perception to win over enough support instead of simply declaring” “No, if that is how you see it you are either racist or stupid!” Was it just that there was no willingness to listen?

Australians had an opportunity in a constitutional referendum to righteously shout loudly “I am not a racist” by voting for a proposition that, at its core, could be seen as fundamentally flawed, divisive and even potentially racist, in the hope even a risk of moving in the direction of apartheid is still better than nothing.

The referendum resulted in a huge setback for action on indigenous disadvantage and while it did seem unlikely to do anything to unify Australians and offer more than some possible affirmative action, the division resulted with even sometimes “yes” voters being encouraged to also be racist.

This is a deeper look trying to see each side from the perspective of the other, with the reality that both sides had a point, and a vast majority of people do want equality and unity.

Perhaps it little more work could bring things together and offer a fresh enough perspective to move beyond just another well-intentioned patronising racism failure like the stolen generations?

Read More »

Crime: A litmus test for inequality?

Around the world, many countries have both a battle with equality for some racial groups and minorities and also a battle with crime-rates within and by those same groups.

Should we consider crime rates the real sentinels of problems and a solution require focusing on factors behind crime rates? Or is the correct response to rising crime rates or crime rates within specific groups an adoption of being “tough on crime”, thus increasing rates of incarceration and even deaths in custody for oppressed minorities and racial groups?

This is an exploration of not adjusting the level of penalties and instead focusing on the core issues and inequalities behind crime-rates. It is clear that it is “damaged people” in general rather than specific racial groups that correlate with elevated crime rates, so why not use crime rates to identify who is facing inequality?

Read More »

Influence: There’s no free lunch and they use your data to make you pay.

It can seem all those tech companies are so dumb giving away services for free.

I recently read another comment containing the “I don’t want Google getting more of my data to sell” and it reminded me of the question, ‘why is your data valuable?’ people too rarely ask. The common myth is that Facebook and Google etc want your data so they can sell it, but even with companies that do sell your data, it still requires someone to turn data into money, and enough money to fund the “free” services of the tech companies and allow them enough spare to make profits beyond anything seen in the world previously. So how does the data turn into so much money?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Google and Facebook etc make their money from advertising, not from selling data, and unless they use can the data to persuade you to buy products at prices inflated by advertisers paying part of the sale price to Facebook/Google etc, they would lose money.

Your data is used to inflate the cost of living and earn votes for politicians with an agenda that gives them a budget to spend. They (Google/Facebook etc) don’t want to sell your data, but the reality, is more sinister: they use it to have to change your thinking, so more of your money will go to make them richer.

Read More »

The Power struggle in Australia.

From “the biggest corruption scandal ever” in Brazil, problems in Venezuela, human rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to the problems caused by lobbyists against action on climate change, an abundance of fossil fuels is a source of political power, yet rarely force for good, and Australia, with a wealth of coal and gas, is not spared.

The current crisis in Ukraine not only drives up energy prices globally, but it also creates a dilemma for gas producing nations.

Read More »

Fragile Democracy: Was Scott ‘Scomo’ Morrison autocrat of Australia?

Democracy collapses when a leader, who is able to bypass the checks and balances, uses their position to retain power.

Steps by recent leaders Scott Morrison and Australia and Donald Trump in the USA, raise questions as to whether current reliance on conventions and constitutions reliably protects democracy.

China, Russia and even North Korea are all technically democracies, and all proof of how technically being a democracy does not necessarily deliver real democracy.

Read More »