This article is more than 1 year old
I, for one, welcome our robotic communist jobless future
Everything will be so cheap, you won't NEED a job
Comment Various of the concerned intelligensia seem to be worried at present that the computers and the robots are going to come and take all our jobs. None of us will have anything to do, we'll starve and the capitalists who own the robots will end up with everything.
Often, the solution offered is that we should therefore tax capital more and in some magical manner this will make everything lovely. The problem with all of this is that no one seems to be thinking through what might actually happen: or rather what will happen.
The first and most obvious point is that we shouldn't be fearing the robots coming to do the work. We should be welcoming it in fact, welcoming it with not just with open arms but hosannahs of praise. For think about it a moment, we all like doing work so little that they actually have to bribe us to turn up and do it. Work, a job, is a cost, not a benefit of our lives. We would much rather that there were no jobs that humans had to do at all - if we could find some other way of getting the things we want, that is.
It's also true that we don't particularly care about incomes. Or even that people have incomes. No, the thing we actually care about is that people get the opportunity to consume. And that can be done in different ways: we only need to look at the economics of a family to know that children don't need an income, they just need there to be a supply of stuff that they can gannet down their necks.
That we mostly do have jobs in order to earn an income so that we can consume is entirely true. But it isn't the only possible method of organising the world, just the most efficient at this stage of economic development. And Marx was indeed correct on at least a couple of points: in this instance, that the state of technology determines the structure of society.
The basic claim by the rage against the machine guys is that the AIs, software and robots are just about to become better than human beings at doing everything. Therefore there will be nothing left for humans to do and, erm, something and then we all die, I think.
The problem is that they're not thinking through the other side of the problem, the other side being the important side of it. So what is it that all of these machines are going to do? They're going to produce all of the goods and services that humans currently have to produce with the labour of their hands and brains. Which, obviously, are going to be used by someone, somewhere, to do something. Thus someone is consuming all these goods and services without having to have jobs: a most desirable situation I would have thought.
And we've actually seen this situation described before. John Maynard Keynes took us close to it in his Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren. As the world gets richer then we'll increase our production of goods and services and we'll be able to assuage the desire for them. As we do that assuaging we'll all start working less because we don't need to work so hard to satisfy our desires: we'll take more leisure. He predicted the three or four hour workday by about now as a result of this. There are those (the New Economics Foundation for example) who grumpily wonder where that increased leisure went. The answer is that it is here.
We must differentiate between unpaid work in the household and paid work in the marketplace. Keynes was talking about the paid work: that would shrink as a portion of our time. What has actually happened is that paid working hours have fallen for men since the 1930s. But they've risen for women. However, one recent survey claimed that back 80 years it took 65 hours a week of that household labour to run a household. Today that's two hours. OK, I think that last figure is undercooking it a bit but it is true that household production hours have fallen by about the amount that Keynes thought working hours would. So he was right about work but not about which type of work: Ha Joon Chang has managed to get just the one thing right when he said that the washing machine (standing in for all household technology) has done more for women's liberation than anything else.
The end and net effect of this reduction in household working hours has been that those for both sexes have diminished to near invisibility, men's paid working hours are modestly down, women's paid working hours are up a lot and leisure hours for all massively risen. We really are taking more of our new wealth as leisure.