D Three

I was listening to a podcast about robotics and automation and the trope of "robots coming to take our jobs" was front and center throughout most of it, as well as roboticists and automation company executives talking about labor shortages and "dull, dirty and dangerous" work.

This framing, I believe, moves the conversation away from the actual social problem that large-scale automation risks; namely that the elimination of certain forms of labor may not create opportunities for other labor at the same skill levels. If a bar is able to automate making and serving drinks (an example from the podcast that appears to fall well outside of the touted "dull, dirty and dangerous"), what work does this create that the bartenders whose skills have been obviated will be able to qualify for?

The podcast hosts dutifully raised the point that workers would need retraining if they were going to remain employed in a society with high level of automation, but, and this has always been the problem with such schemes, private companies see the benefits of making, selling and deploying systems of automation, but it is governments that are expected to foot the bill for preparing the public for disruptions to the labor market. And,  at least here in the United States, governments have been poor at the task, in no large part because those jurisdictions that have the most work to do tend to be the most starved of resources, because their constituents are already financially straited.