It is a subject that politicians won't talk about, except for one party promising new jobs and another to trumpeting record employment. Reports talk about robots taking over, but what is the truth; what is the evidence? What of the creative industries? More to the point, what is to be done?
One hundred
people from across all stages of education, local government and industry came
to Lincoln Drill Hall to hear presentations by people (see below) immersed in
the debate. I offer here my reflections on a very thought provoking day.
I begin with my
prejudice, which is a fear that AI (artificial intelligence) will cost jobs.
This was dismissed as the Luddite Fallacy, harking back to the
fear of early 19th century millworkers to the coming of machinery. I also
began with a strong feeling that 'middle order' jobs have already been lost and
replaced with poorly paid unskilled work with variable hours. I am reminded of
the brilliant TV drama Years and Years. I am also still worried.
The first
speaker offered much needed evidence by showing just which jobs are vulnerable
to AI, and they are largely those middle order clerical jobs. (This struck a
chord with me in relation to my own writing where I uncovered photographs of
massive offices for clerical work in support of army supply in WW2.)
There could
be a lot of clerical jobs at risk, perhaps 30% of all current jobs could to be
lost. On the positive side new jobs will be created, many as Robot minders,
which surely begs another TV drama. Those undertaking the new jobs will need to
be trained and certainly those set to lose jobs might see it as a challenge
beyond them. This is Industry 4.0, the fourth industrial revolution this
time with the focus on interconnectivity. A key issue to emerge from this
process of job loss and job creation is the time lag between the two.
For me a
fascinating insight came at the coffee break where I spoke to my old neighbour
who works in a senior role in the care sector. We had both seen that care work
was among the least likely to be replaced by AI. It is work that needs human
empathy, however it is seriously undervalued. Later a questioner suggested that
people without high aspirations could become 'hair dressers or care workers'.
Without being dismissive of hair dressers, care work surely needs to be
recognised as a profession and paid accordingly. It would be good if this
debate could shed light on this.
What other
jobs are 'safe'? Not artists, it would seem. AI can make perfect copies of
great masters. I digress into some other of my own work pointing to JohnRuskin, (whose voice needs to be heard more generally in this debate - he was
fearful of the impact of industrialisation on the wellbeing of workers), but
who in this context, could, at the age of 21, copy the style of all the
significant painters of his day but who only discovered 'true art' when he
began to paint from nature. This gives a focus on what AI cannot do: General
Intelligence, Value Judgements to name but two.
It isn't just
AI and Robots, digital technology generally, not least digital printing, is
making a big impact in improving the service offered to customers by Lincoln's
biggest manufacturing employer, Siemens. This company has also seen huge
benefit from empowering groups of employees and truly seeking their ideas:
digital crowd sourcing. Nevertheless another key issue is the inevitable
internal opposition to change.
All
generations are different and of course none are understood by their parents.
Generation Z, those aged between 8 and 23, are very different: they have no
emery before 9/11; they have only lived in financially challenging times; they
have only ever lived with digital technology; they are better informed, have
strong opinions and feel empowered; they value tolerance and equality and
reject being labelled. How will they fit in the changing work place? At Siemens
they would be welcomed, but is it true of all employers? The voices we heard,
can be heard in the form of a drama piece, Youthquake at Lincoln Drill Hall on October and
on tour.
In looking at
the economic changes that have taken place in the lifetime of Generation Z,
significant are the decoupling of wages and productivity, the polarisation of
the labour market with few highly paid, many low paid and a reducing number of
medium paid jobs.
So, what is to be done, particularly in the
context of Lincolnshire where geographical areas and differing groups of people
have been untouched by general economic growth? Are there specific actions that
can improve their lot? Incidentally there seems to be a correlation between
these forgotten areas and those where people voted 'Leave' in 2016. A possible
answer emerged in the thinking behind Inclusive Economics.
I look
forward to follow up work from this day, for in truth this was but a start. We
didn't begin to talk about job satisfaction, Universal Basic Income or the
financial viability of careers in the arts.
Those
speaking, introduced by University of Lincoln Vice-Chancellor, Mary Stuart,
were Marc Hanheide, Professor of Intelligent Robotics & Interactive
Systems University of Lincoln; Yuval Fertig, Economist at PwC; Neil Corner,
Managing Director Siemens Lincoln; Toby Ealden, Artistic Director Zest Theatre;
Dr Neil Lee, Associate Professor of Economic Geography, LSE. The event
concluded with a panel of students questioned by Professor Libby John, Pro-Vice
Chancellor, University of Lincoln and a reflection session with Liz Shutt,
Director of Policy, University of Lincoln/Greater Lincolnshire LEP