This got me thinking more deeply about the larger impact of the Occupy movement. The Great Recession (that we are either in the tail of or which recently passed, depending on which economist you read) has occurred at a time when many college graduates are having difficulty finding jobs. The bailout of financial institutions followed by publication of bonus plans for financial executives have also occurred at the same time. On the surface, these two factors: a very sluggish job market and the excessive bonuses and bailouts certainly justify the indignation witnessed in the Occupy movement. If you add to those factors the polarization of Washington politics, we are clearing in a defining moment of time.
I have always believed that technological innovation would drive skills enhancements for many jobs. There would be less of a need for highly repetitive, mechanistic work, and more need for thoughtful analysis. A good example is the work of a nurse where the ability to read and respond to digital monitoring of a patient's condition has become routine. There is more expected of us at work now that we have automated some of the routine calculations and steps of a task. It is also true that some of the finer mechanical skills that technicians applied throughout the latter half of the nineteenth and the entire twentieth century have become less in demand as those workers have been replaced by automation.
It's difficult enough determining how best to use new technology on the job, more so to figure out the right mix of human and machine resources for an economy as a whole. It is not a zero-sum game where more technology at work means less humans at work. As computers started monitoring patients, or assembly-line operations, the skills required of people to work with that monitoring equipment changed. New industries were created to produce innovative gadgets and peripheral devices, and of course, software. Back when computers were starting to appear on office desks, who could have predicted that we would be funding companies to create social media applications for mobile phones a generation or so later?
There are clear indications that we need to continually learn how to use and shape technology if we are to be gainfully employed in occupations that challenge us and have meaning to us. As exponential growth in some factors of technology continue, it will be critical for us to keep up.
In their book, Race Against the Machine, Brynjolfsson and McAfee refer to the second half of the chessboard, a term coined by Ray Kurzweil to indicate a point where "an exponentially growing factor begins to have a significant economic impact." As the authors put it:
"Kurzweil’s point is that constant doubling, reflecting exponential growth, is deceptive because it is initially unremarkable. Exponential increases initially look a lot like standard linear ones, but they’re not. As time goes by—as we move into the second half of the chessboard—exponential growth confounds our intuition and expectations. It accelerates far past linear growth..."
As evidence of the fact that we are truly experiencing technological change that confounds us, they refer to Google's automobile driving itself, IBM's Watson consistently winning at Jeopardy and GeoFluent's ability to do real-time translation of online chat messages.
A partial answer for the extremely sluggish job growth we've seen over the past year is, I believe, the technological unemployment resulting from this exponential growth. Technological innovation is seen in many traditional industries, and in fact is responsible, according to Brynjolfsson and McAfee, for separating some of the leading companies from their competitors.
As for the increasing income disparity between the 99% and the 1%, exponential technological growth will only exacerbate this. Owners of capital, which includes corporate ownership of technology, have reaped greater profits from the explosive productivity of these non-human resources. Unless the majority of workers (by which I mean workers without significant ownership in an enterprise) can sell their skill at a rate that keeps up with the growth of technological capital, then workers will necessarily earn a smaller piece of the pie.
As a student of economics, this is how I see what is happening in our current crisis. It is not a moral judgement by any means, but represents what appears, to me, to be happening. As an experienced software engineer, I see every day who competes and am aware of those that do not, and without self-training and pro-active behavior, I see the crisis getting worse for most people.
So, it is not purely the mis-administration of public funds to prop up reckless financiers, nor the greed of the 1% that is necessarily responsible for our current economic climate. There are longer-term forces at work which require not only good stewardship from our corporate and government leaders but good stewardship by each and every person of their own career.
I started out this post by addressing the Occupy movement and I hope to have shed some light on the longer-term forces that are important when looking at cause and effect. Long-term technological progress does not explain the reckless behavior of Wall Street firms trying to make money on securities based on bad mortgages. But it does explain at least part of the increasing disparity in income we've seen in our society over the past twenty or thirty years. In the spirit of cooperation, I wonder if we, as citizens, might be able to find ways to help ourselves become better prepared for a more technologically-oriented future, while at the same time using our newly-acquired skills to monitor and police our society so that irresponsible behavior in the so-called white-collar world is more transparent and more easily deterred.
Leaving this open-ended, without answer at this point gives me an opportunity to think and write more on these possibilities. I'd love to hear your thoughts.