Robocalypse Now? Why we Shouldn't Panic about Automation, Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence

46 Pages Posted: 4 Jun 2021

See all articles by J. R. Shackleton

J. R. Shackleton

Westminster Business School; Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA); University of Buckingham

Date Written: May 11, 2018

Abstract

It is claimed that robots, algorithms and artificial intelligence are going to destroy jobs on an unprecedented scale. These developments, unlike past bouts of technical change, threaten rapidly to affect even highly-skilled work and lead to mass unemployment and/or dramatic falls in wages and living standards, while accentuating inequality. As a result, we are threatened with the ‘end of work’, and should introduce radical new policies such as a robot tax and a universal basic income. However the claims being made of massive job loss are based on highly contentious technological assumptions and are contested by economists who point to flaws in the methodology. In any case, ‘technological determinism’ ignores the engineering, economic, social and regulatory barriers to adoption of many theoretically possible innovations. And even successful innovations are likely to take longer to materialise than optimists hope and pessimists fear. Moreover, history strongly suggests that jobs destroyed by technical change will be replaced by new jobs complementary to these technologies – or else in unrelated areas as spending power is released by falling prices. Current evidence on new types of job opportunity supports this suggestion. The UK labour market is currently in a healthy state and there is little evidence that technology is having a strongly negative effect on total employment. The problem at the moment may be a shortage of key types of labour rather than a shortage of work. The proposal for a robot tax is ill-judged. Defining what is a robot is next to impossible, and concerns over slow productivity growth anyway suggest we should be investing more in automation rather than less. Even if a workable robot tax could be devised, it would essentially duplicate the effects, and problems, of corporation tax. Universal basic income is a concept with a long history. Despite its appeal, it would be costly to introduce, could have negative effects on work incentives, and would give governments dangerous powers. Politicians already seem tempted to move in the direction of these untested policies. They would be foolish to do so. If technological change were to create major problems in the future, there are less problematic policies available to mitigate its effects – such as reducing taxes on employment income, or substantially deregulating the labour market.

Keywords: UK, Britain, government regulation, regulation, automation, technology, economic development, artificial intelligence, robots

JEL Classification: Y80, L51, O31, O38, O33, O30

Suggested Citation

Shackleton, J. R. and Shackleton, J. R., Robocalypse Now? Why we Shouldn't Panic about Automation, Algorithms and Artificial Intelligence (May 11, 2018). Institute of Economic Affairs Current Controversies No. 61, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3853643 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853643

J. R. Shackleton (Contact Author)

Westminster Business School

35 Marylebone Road
London NW1 5LS
0207 911 5075 (Phone)

Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA)

2 Lord North Street, Westminster
London, SW1P 3LB
United Kingdom

University of Buckingham

Hunter Street
Buckingham MK18 1EG
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
169
Abstract Views
752
Rank
321,600
PlumX Metrics