Does IT Lead to Job Elimination, or Job Enhancement - Essay Example

Does IT Lead to Job Elimination, or Job Enhancement? Technology in any sense of the word whether in referenceto antiquated discoveries such as discovery of fire and building technology the agrarian and technical revolution or contemporary discoveries in science, computer and robotics has always had a deep seated and often irreversible effect on society. One of the most important discourses pertaining to the subject of technological advancement is the subject of its ability to be applied to carry out tasks that would previously be done by a large number of people. In a factory, where for example machines are assembled or foods processed, through the use of robotic arms and conveyer belts, a job that may have been retrospectively been done by a hundred unskilled workers can be done by just a handful of machine operators. Inevitably, given the sensitive nature of labor issue, machines were not very well received by the workers they stood to replace; even today the interrogation of technology is often condemned by those who view it as a negative force rendering people jobless especially in labor intensive economies. While this is a logically sound argument, it is nevertheless one sided in view of the fact that the relationship between labor and technology is not as simple as that. In as much as technology may result in unemployment in some sectors, it has spawned millions of jobs in in numerous sectors and one can even argue that in the end it creates more jobs than it destroys. In the late 19th century at the height of the industrial revolution, a group of artisans working in the textile industry started a revolution of sorts in Britain against the use of machines in the production of textiles. They were afraid that automation of the process of production would cause them to lose their jobs since less skilled and therefore cheaper employees rendering them redundant could operate the machines. The Luddites as they were known became a significant social and political movement and they engaged in numerous acts of destruction in protest of adaption of machines in their industry (Baggaley, 2010). So much so that it is estimated that British soldiers were at some point involved in fighting the luddites than engaging napoleon. Ultimately, the movement was crashed through a series of trials in which the Luddites were convicted for machine breaking, which had been made a capital crime, and many were executed (Edgerton, 2011). Today, the term Luddite is used to describe someone who is seen as being opposed to or slow to incorporate technology (Baggaley, 2010). Proponents of the arguments that technology has a negative effect on jobs will use both historical and contemporary evidence to contend the positivity of technology in the labor. Just like the industrial revolution occasioned a boon in mechanization, the 20st century was greeted with accelerating technology and automation especially in light of the internet and an increase in software development. During the first decade of the 2000s this technological advances saw to the automation that reduced the demand for many customer service jobs in many industries such as airline reservation or directory services as they could be carried out by software of online. In addition, some documentation and filing jobs which took in some cases armies of lawyers to carry out and authenticate were taken over by digital copiers potentially rendering thousands unemployed. Brynjolfsson and McAfee in comparing the 2000 technology boon and the preceding years surmised that while employment rates in Europe had gone up between the 80s and 90s by at least 20%, the 21st century saw them reduce by one 1% is a significant drop by any standards (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012). The two economists have been accused of being Luddites in the past owing to their controversial stand on technology and the perceived negative impact on employment (Rotman, 2013). However, on closer examination, their position is actually quite objective and largely backed by plausible evidence. They believe that technology has been destroying jobs faster than it has been creating them and it is a major contribution to the stagnant median income in the USA and continental Europe. To put this across, they created a chart based on statistical evidence collected form the last 4 decades. Based on the assumption that economic productivity, which is the amount of value an input creates, is a key indicator of growth and wealth creation and a measure of progress, they charted productivity against total employment in the United States. For several years after the Second World War, the two were closely aligned showing that a rise in productivity was followed by a corresponding g increase in employment. Evidently as businesses grew and developed, partly because of technological progress, the generated more value from their workers and increased productivity and in the long run demand for labor. Conversely, after, 2000, the pattern undergoes a marked change, the lines diverse with productivity continuing to increase robustly while employment plummets to previously unprecedented depths. By 2011, a notable gap appears between the two as economic growth seems to be divorced from economic production in what McAfee calls the “great decoupling”. It is proposed that with time, the replacement of human workers with machines will not stop at labor intensive professional or non-skilled jobs, as has been the (Pearlstein, 2014) case, it is possible that even the roles of senior executives will also be vulnerable. In future, according to the editor of smart planet, Larry, Digan, machines are developing at such a pace that it is possible they may replace senior executives, in fact the only thing standing on their way at present is business culture, but in a few decades, most of what CEOs and CFOs do will probably be done better by machines (Rotman 2013). Technology undoubtedly creates many jobs and those who adapt to it unequivocally become more secure in their by virtue of specialization at their jobs which essentially makes their jobs safer and easier. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence that technology threatens jobs is all over, through robots and other automation systems, the field of manufacturing for instance has been in the last few decades become less labor and more capital intensive. Today, in the world’s major industrial giants, The United States and China have a smaller number of employees working in their manufacturing industry than they did 1997 despite the exponential growth of the industries since then. Owing, at least partly, to automation, modern automotive for example are assembled through machines that carry out the actions of welding and painting autonomously, these tasks were retrospectively carried out by human workers hence the inversely proportional employment and mechanization statistics. In recent times, technology has been used to develop industrial robots such as rethink robotics, which can carry out minor tasks for manufacturers and this stand to replace even more staff. Industrial perception, a silicon valley based firm is working to develop a robot that can pick and pack boxes in warehouses in more or less the same way a person would. More sensationally is the recent unveiling of work on the driverless car by Google points towards the possibility that automation may in the long run accomplish greater things than it is doing today and that, according to many may be the dearth of many manual and even skilled jobs. Having discussed some of the arguments in proposing that technology is a negative force in as far as employment is concerned, the other side of the coin will be discoursed both in response to preceding claims and to propose new perspective. Economist opposing the notion use the term; “Luddite fallacy” to elucidate the notion of technical redundancy resulting in mechanical joblessness and in the long run being macro economically detrimental. They oppose the opinion that technology reduces the overall demand for labor by positing that through technological innovation, a firm reduces labor inputs and therefore, the cost of production goes down curving the supply curve outward and therefore reducing the price of goods. This in long run will result to economic and capital growth since the low prices will increase demand and industries will have to expand to meet the increased demand, ultimately this will result in an increase in employment. In the short term, it is easy to see technology as killing jobs, however on closer observation, one will notice that the jobs are in some cases simply moving from one sector to another or the way in which they are done changed. For example, at the height of the PC revolution, critics claimed they would render most office staff irrelevant and kill off the office worker; however, this was proven wrong. PC’s simply changed the way people worked and in many cases new jobs were created since the demand for PC resulted in an increased production capacity for companies like IBM while new ones were formed to provide, software services and maintenance of the PCs. When judged from the assumption that a few people in the filing office may have lost their jobs with the advent of the PC, it would appear technology did indeed reduce employment; however, the bigger picture presents a radically different point of view. In the same case, consider the fact that technology did indeed reduce the number of telephone operators because many of the tasks are carried out by automated machines, however communication technology that resulted in this also resulted in the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs for telemarketers and call center operators many who are employed overseas as companies outsource. The elimination of a human operator at the end of the telephone line lead to numerous innovations and inventions, which resulted in new jobs and business opportunities, in fact the automation of phone lines, was one of the factors that facilitated the birth of the internet. The internet opened up the world on tremendous scale and it has created millions of jobs both in the formal and informal sector, people open business online and offline and using the facilities availed din the internet they market their products on a global platform. Some of the most successful and influential businesses today are purely based on technology and offering technological solutions, apple Inc. is the world most valuable company in its wake are the likes of Google Microsoft and Facebook. This technology based firms and many others not only provide employment for millions but also provide innumerable tools through which anyone can create a job for themselves and or other people. In the first part of the paper, the experts proposed that technology is largely responsible for the reduction in employment figures; nonetheless, this view has not been uncontested. Without doubt, there is no arguing with the figures; employment has definably reduced even as technology escalates in the last few years. However, there are those who believe that there is no definite connection between the two and that there are other plausible explanations for the same. Many economist when faced with the question of if technology is responsible for the poor job prospects that have seemed to follow it concede that although there could be a connection, the data are supporting it are sketchy at best and there could be myriad other explanations such as the financial crises that ravaged the west in the first decade of 2000. Extricating the influences of technology from the other microeconomic effects is very challenging, according to Freeman a Harvard university professor. However, he is skeptical that technology has changed the business environment radically enough to impact on employment at the current rate (Rotman 2013). According to David Author, who is an MIT economist at MIT and who has studied the connection between employment and technology concedes to the claim by Mc Afee that there was indeed a slump in the employment sector around 2000. However, that is as far as he agrees with the “experts”, he claims that the low employment rates can actually be attributed to a variety of other factors such as an economic slump. Something changed, no doubt about it, but there is very little evidence to sufficiently pin the blame on technology, several other economists are of the opinion that the disruption in the job market was and remains a puzzle. Personal Issue This subject is close to me because my future career and the nature of my scholarship have put me in direct contact with two of the main issues that weigh in on this debate. For one, I am an international student, consequently by virtue of studying and living outside my country of birth, I am a product of globalization. This has been one of the driving forces of technological advancement since through intercultural and national interactions and social-intellectual exchanges made possible by the reality of a global village; a lot has been shared and developed. I am studying IT abroad and I hope to someday go back and serve my county of birth with high hopes of lending a hand at bringing about technological growth and innovation. I have always believed my mission to be noble and seen myself as a force for good, nevertheless in light of the present argument I am forced to contend with several questions of my own. If it is indeed true that technology has a negative effect on employment, what impact will I have when I go back home? By virtual of the fact that I am in ICT, I will undoubtedly play a key role no matter how minor in promoting technology and its application in various fields such as industrial economic or business. The possibility that the luddites may be right implies that contrary to my intentions, I may end up making matters worse in the long run assuming that technology will negatively impact on job creation. However, inasmuch as I cannot deny that possibility, from the studies I have examined and discoursed upon in this course and in the research for this paper, I am aware that the potential posed by technology will likely by far transcend any threat that it may be perceived to result in. I am a firm believer in progress technological or otherwise and I hold that whichever side of the argument one supports technological progress is inevitable and trying to contain it would be an act of utmost futility. My country, like most others in the developed and developing world is facing an employment problem, while I do not shy from admitting that technology has contributed to the laying of people here and there, approximately half my friends work in technology related fields. Those who do not directly take part apply technology in one aspect of their work or the other, besides; practically everyone I know today is dependent to some extent on some technological software or services. Think of all the people who have cellphones, and laptops through which the access social networks banking, entertainment and other services. Most of this did not even exist in the early 90’s and 80’s, without a doubt the fact that so many of us use these services is evidence of millions who are employed in their creation, development and maintenance, while this may not be possible to prove, it is likely in that technology has created far more jobs than it may have decimated. In conclusion, I tend to believe that the issue from a layman’s point of view is the Luddite perspective is an easy one to sympathize with, it appeals to commonsense that when machines are introduced into the work place, they phase out the human labor. Historical evidence appears to back up this claim if one considerers the arguments presented by Mc Afee and his contemporaries. Nevertheless, from a critical perspective, the issue is not as simple as that, in this internet age, it is not possible for anyone to be sure how many people are employed, how many are not given the immense latitude, and diversity the internet avails to its users. At the end of the day, both sides of the arguments carry significant merit since although technology reduces employment in the short run, it has been proven to cause a chain effects that results in creation of jobs in the long run. This does not however entirely discount the Luddite argument since technological boon of the 21st century has been accompanied by high unemployment but ultimately weather its effects are positive or negative; it is not possible for there to be consensus. However, given that technological progress is inseparable from human social political existence so the most progressive scenario would be one where government and corporate stakeholders work in tandem to exploit the opportunities that technology portends to increase employment and self-reliance. References Baggaley, J. (2010). The luddite revolt continues. Distance Education, 31(3), 337-343. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2012). Winning the race with ever-smarter machines. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(2), 53-60. Edgerton, D. (2011). In praise of luddism. Nature, 471(7336), 27-9. Pearlstein, S. (2014, Jan 18). The second machine age, by erik brynjolfsson andrew McAfee (posted 2014-01-18 23:38:01). The Washington Post. Rotman, D. (2013) How Technology Is Destroying Jobs. Technology Review. Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/ Read More