Going toe to toe on robotics

One fond memory from my long-ago youth was playing Rock’Em, Sock’Em Robots with my next-door neighbor. My parents wouldn’t get me the game, for reasons I forget, but my friend Ronnie, who always got the latest, greatest games and toys, had a brand-new version. The objective was to manipulate your plastic robot to knock out the other robot by hitting his spring-loaded head, making it pop up.

In January, the robotics industry was playing Rock’Em, Sock’Em Robots with CBS’s “60 Minutes.” The news program broadcast a segment called “Are robots hurting job growth?” based in large part on an interview with Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and co-authors of the 2011 book, “Race Against the Machine.”

The book’s main point is that new technology, including robotics and automation, is eliminating vast numbers of jobs. This has, of course, happened throughout history, but economies typically found ways to replace the lost jobs. The authors argue that, today, job creation can’t keep pace with jobs lost to automation.

Leaders of the robotics industry were aghast. “While the ‘60 Minutes’ depiction of how technological advances in automation and robotics are revolutionizing the workplace was spot on, their focus on how implementation of these automation technologies eliminates jobs could not be more wrong,” said Jeff Burnstein, president of the Robotics Industries of America and of the trade group A3. “We provided ‘60 Minutes’ producers several examples of innovative American companies who have used automation to become stronger global competitors. ... They unfortunately chose not to include these companies in their segment. With respect to MIT professors Brynjolfsson and McAfee …, they are missing the bigger picture.”

To me, the robotics industry’s reaction is a bit like Capt. Renault in the movie “Casablanca” announcing he is “shocked, shocked” to find gambling going on at Rick’s Café, just before being presented with his cut of the night’s take. To pretend automation doesn’t eliminate jobs is more than a bit disingenuous. Yes, robots do allow U.S. manufacturers to compete better, and, yes, they can help create jobs in new factories that use them and in the robot factories that build them. And there is no question that manufacturers, including those in the metalworking industry, must continue to automate processes when it is cost-effective to do so. But the main goal of automation is to eliminate certain jobs, mostly low- to middle-skilled, highly structured jobs. The real question, and what we should be discussing, is how do we replace those jobs with others that humans can do? The numbers are not encouraging, and they seem to confirm the authors’ main point.

In 2000, 129 million people in the U.S. held nonfarm jobs and, in 2013, 133 million people held them, according to data compiled by Timothy McMahon of Unemployment.com. That’s a total increase of 3.1 percent over 13 years. In 2000, the population of the U.S. was 281 million and, in 2013, it is about 314 million, an increase of 11.7 percent. Population increased at well more than triple the rate of job growth.

You might think numerous new jobs would come from fast-growing companies like Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google. After all, these giants of the tech business have a combined market capitalization of about $1 trillion. But guess what? Just 150,000 people are employed by these four companies combined.

The U.S. is not the only country affected by this trend—Chinese and Indian workers are in the crosshairs, too. For example, Chinese company Foxconn, a key Apple supplier, is reportedly purchasing a million robots to replace much of its workforce. The robots will take over routine jobs like spray painting, welding and basic assembly.

I don’t pretend to know how this will turn out. Humans are an ingenious lot and there may be some very productive things we can do that haven’t been thought of yet. But if you hear of a robot that can write a magazine column, let me know ASAP. CTE