![\"How](\"http:\/\/www.massarate.ma\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/robots-f1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In 2013, researchers Carl Frey and Michael Osborne of the Oxford Martin School dropped the bombshell that\u00a047 percent of U\u200bS jobs<\/a> were at risk of computerisation. Since then, they\u2019ve made similar\u00a0predicti\u200bons for the UK<\/a>, where they say 35 percent of jobs are at high risk.<\/p>\n So what will our future economy look like?<\/p>\n \u201cMy predictions have enormously high variance,\u201d Osborne told me when I asked if he was optimistic. \u201cI can imagine completely plausible, incredibly positive scenarios, but they\u2019re only about as probable as actually quite dystopian futures that I can imagine.\u201d<\/p>\n In\u00a0a new \u200breport<\/a> produced as part of a programme supported by Citi, he and Frey outline how increased innovation\u00a0–\u00a0read: automation\u00a0–\u00a0could lead to stagnation.<\/p>\n The problem is that we\u2019re seeing more and more jobs becoming automated, but little job creation. You might expect new technologies to open up new opportunities, but the report points to previous findings that only 0.5 percent of US jobs in 2010 came from industries that didn\u2019t exist in 2000.<\/p>\n Osborne gave a few examples: iOS developers, Zumba instructors, and people working with social media. Jobs that are most safe naturally require skills that are simply difficult for a bot to do, the \u201cthree bottlenecks to automation:\u201d creativity, social intelligence, and the ability to interact with complex objects and environments.<\/p>\n The authors reference US economist Alvin Hansen\u2019s thesis of \u201csecular stagnation\u201d following the Great Depression. The\u00a0Financial T\u200bimes<\/em> describes<\/a> the general idea: When income and savings start to exceed long-term investment, economic growth is at risk. This then leads to a decrease in income and savings, and economic growth stagnates.\u200b<\/p>\n Things are a bit different now compared to Hansen\u2019s day. \u201cIn Hansen\u2019s framework, stagnation stems from a slowdown in technological progress, resulting in fewer investment opportunities,\u201d the researchers write. But: \u201cCrucially, the sluggish job creation in digital industries does not necessarily imply a slower or faster pace of innovation.\u201d<\/p>\n Rather, the kind of innovation we\u2019re seeing just isn\u2019t creating jobs, because it doesn\u2019t need labour to build capital. They use the example of WhatsApp: It started out with $250,000 in funding but when the mobile-messaging app was acquired for $19 billion, it still only employed 55 people.<\/p>\n This means that while digital industries are making money, more people are at risk of being \u201ccompletely left out of the pie,\u201d in Osborne\u2019s words. He said part of the cause was technology allowing individuals to have a greater influence, and part of it was related to the \u201csuperstar phenomenon\u201d: \u201ca small number of extremely lucky or extremely talented individuals carving off a much larger slice of the pie.\u201d<\/p>\nWhen WhatsApp was acquired for $19 billion, it still only employed 55 people<\/h2>\n
As consumers we\u2019re benefiting enormously; as workers we\u2019re being harmed<\/h2>\n