Chronic Unemployment

Posted: January 10th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Business, Education, Finance/Economics, Thinking Out Loud, Web/Tech | Tags: , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Structural unemployment is a form of unemployment that occurs because worker’s skills are outdated, or not desired by employers. Technological unemployment is in some ways a type of structural unemployment caused specifically by advances in technology – as technology automates jobs, workers become unemployed with no skills to gain other employment.

Both of these types of unemployment are traditionally fixed through supply-side policies such as training and educating workers so that they have skills desired by employers. This fix is costly to taxpayers as it is not cheap to provide education. However, in most cases, it is a fix – workers will be able to find employment after being trained and educated. Structural and technological unemployment are in most cases temporary because of the government’s supply-side efforts.

But what if technology advances so much that employers simply don’t need as many workers, no matter what their skills?

I’m not just talking about manual labour here. Obviously manual jobs are being replaced by robots and others forms of technology. But again, these people can be up-skilled and subsequently find re-employment. I’m talking about when technology becomes so advanced that people cannot up-skill to a point above the capacity of the technology so as to become desirable to an employer.

Technology is starting to cause people with university degrees to become unemployed. Law firms don’t need as many lawyers because much of the research can be done in one-hundredth the time it previously took. R&D departments need less engineers and managers because the processes have been automated. Teachers are becoming irrelevant as we learn online. I’m talking to friends of mine who have masters degrees and cannot find a job. It’s a global problem that most people are blaming on the economic downturn. I don’t fully believe that. It may be a part of it, yes – but I believe the main cause of this unemployment is simply advances in technology.

It’s only going to get worse because technology will never stop advancing. We’re going to see technology continue to progress at faster rates every single year than it ever has previously. And the technology is going to become (already is becoming) so advanced that it will render people with masters degrees “unskilled”. No company will hire an individual whose skills can be done by a form of technology at a tenth of the cost. Technology also doesn’t require healthcare and stock options.

Where is this going to lead? If people simply are not needed and therefore cannot gain a form of income, what happens? How do they live?

In the short-term, governments won’t realize that the problem is advances in technology. They’ll keep paying benefits to more and more people, while funding supply-side efforts to train workers. They will subsidize university. They’ll focus on education to begin with. They also might try demand-side policies – by increasing government spending, they can fund more jobs. So we’ll see governments employing more people. But none of these solutions are long-term. They’ll simply lead to a waste of resources in every country.

And when governments do realize that the problem is advances in technology? Well, stopping advances in technology to save jobs is ludicrous. I hope that no government ever considers that.

I think this is a massive problem that will start to show just how serious it is in a couple of decades. This will be one of the major problems facing economies (excluding, ironically, developing economies) in this century. And I don’t have an answer to the problem.

Personally, I want to be at the forefront of developing these technologies. I guess it’s a kind of “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality. I also think that entrepreneurship is going to explode in societies as a result of this problem. People who can’t find jobs will simply create one for themselves. In this sense, this may be a blessing to modern societies.

After I began thinking about this issue, I tried to find more writing on the topic. I couldn’t find much, other than a book by one Martin Ford, called The Lights in the Tunnel. I’m reading it now, and will likely write another post once I’ve finished it. If you know of any other writing done on this topic, please share it with me – I want to find out as much as I can.


  • http://twitter.com/JoshForde Josh Forde

    Seth Godin’s Linchpin is a slightly-Americanised book on this, about the shift in value and the hollowing out of the middle-class doing automatable jobs.  Will lend it if you want it.

    Interesting watching it happen in financial services for example.The fact is, technology creates efficiencies over time rendering laborious processes redundant (encyclopedia writer anyone?), but as humans we still have huge levels of unmet needs.   It just means there’s nowhere to hide in organisations as meaningless work gets trimmed out as wasteful.   

  • http://mmoorejones.com Michael Moore-Jones

    I remember you talking about it maybe a couple of years ago – I should’ve read it earlier! Will get it on Kindle now :)

  • J W Johnston

    My Google Alert for “Lights in the Tunnel” hit on your post. You give a very nice summary of the topic.

    I like Martin Ford’s book, esp. his serious thinking about possible solutions. Some other good writings on the subject:

    Brynjolfsson and McAfee “Race Against the Machine” (2011)
    Jeremy Rifkin “The End of Work” (1995)
    Douglas Rushkoff CNN article “Are Jobs Obsolete?” (2011)
    Marshall Brain “Robotic Freedom” (~2005)
    Barry Jones “Sleepers, Wake!” (1982)
    Robert Anton Wilson “The RICH Economy” (1980)
    “The Triple Revolution” Memorandum (1964)

  • http://mmoorejones.com Michael Moore-Jones

    Brilliant, thanks so much for that! Really appreciate it – exactly what I’ve been looking for.

  • Philip

    Your’s is a good outline of the growing problem. To a degree I think my career in accountancy has stumbled in the last few years partly because of increasing automation of accounting processes – certainly there aren’t anywhere near as many accounting jobs around as there were say ten years ago.

    If we assume that organisations will in general become more cost-effective and/or profitable as their head-counts drop and their automation increases, how is our society going to transfer some of that gain to compensate the people who would previously have filled those jobs?

    In other wods, it is unlikely that national GDP will fall as a result of the changes – it may even rise – but less GDP will be directly earned by individual effort. Maybe Gareth Morgan is on to something with his Big Kahuna proposals?

  • http://mmoorejones.com Michael Moore-Jones

    Too true – this definitely won’t help income inequality and all of that!

    I haven’t heard about Gareth Morgan’s proposals, but will do some Googling now.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Josh’s point, and there’s a whole wave of books – Linchpin, A Whole New Mind, and I guess The 4-Hour Work Week as well, that talk about how today’s labour market requires a different mindset. A job is only one means through which you can earn income; I agree, entrepreneurship will rise, plus consulting and contracting on specific niche areas. 
    Overall, I think that by being able to delegate more laborious tasks to technological devices, humans will be left to do what only humans can do - connect, evaluate, build relationships, innovate – there are still SO many problems in the world. When someone can use the market to fix a problem (effectively), they’ve got a business/a means of earning income. 

    So hopefully what we see is a new generation of workers who accept that a job is not just going to be handed to them (because things are changing so fast, that education can’t necessarily keep up with industry) – they are going to have to go out there and find ways to create value in a much more proactive, original way.

  • http://twitter.com/andryrabiaza Andry Rabiaza

    It’s the first time that I heard this theory about chronic unemployment. And it’s weird to say that when you heard dozens of solutions and theories about it every weeks because it’s at the heart of the social and economic problem in our developed society. In my country (France), even when unemployment rate decreased, chronic unemployment rate doesn’t.

    Two reasons for the politics to not talk about it. First, as you said, it’s faster and easier to blame economic downturn and (but it’s specific of France, in my opinion) a decrease in high school and universities general level. Second, it’s hard for a politic, and I do politics sometimes, to say to your population that there is no real solution now. Very hard especially during election time. Very hard during an economic crisis. In response, as you explain, it’s quicker to try to reduce the gap by increasing public spending in job, training and education programs.

    Back to the theory. More I think about it, more I agree to it. When politics said, unemployed need to be trained to fit to the demand, it’s just the application of the theory. When, and you tell also this, a master degree doesn’t find job, it’s also just the application of the theory.

    So the real question is not if this problem is real but how to fight it.

    To tackle it, there is not one solution but there are some ways to explore. In my mind, innovation and entrepreneurship are the first. At this time, it’s the best way to be ahead of the technology. So technology can’t replace you. And that’s why I have the same mentality and the same aim as you, Michael, a kind of “if you can’t beat them, join them” as you said.

    Second way, focusing on some subjects. Technologies cover many subjects. But some questions still unanswered because techs don’t touch enough them. However, these questions can be answered only by focusing on them. It’s when I agree with Adele when she said that consulting and contracting on specific niche areas will grow.

    Third way, rethinking about the society. It looks like utopia at first but it’s may be a solution. Technology reduces the number of jobs. Innovation and entrepreneurship may can’t create enough jobs for everyone. Maybe this last idea is wrong (I wait your opinion on it). So the core question is this: can we imagine a society where some people doesn’t have job and lived thanks to other members’ contributions? It’s possible and may be it’s already the case but there are too many questions asked back: Which member? How to make it work? How to finance it fairly?  

    As a conservative, I’m embarrassed by this idea. I always think that everyone must contribute to the society to have an help from it. The notion of exchange is at the heart of my vision of the society. But at this time, I agree that the last way is in contradiction to my values and general ideas.

  • http://twitter.com/andryrabiaza Andry Rabiaza

    It’s the first time that I heard this theory about chronic unemployment. And it’s weird to say that when you heard dozens of solutions and theories about it every weeks because it’s at the heart of the social and economic problem in our developed society. In my country (France), even when unemployment rate decreased, chronic unemployment rate doesn’t.

    Two reasons for the politics to not talk about it. First, as you said, it’s faster and easier to blame economic downturn and (but it’s specific of France, in my opinion) a decrease in high school and universities general level. Second, it’s hard for a politic, and I do politics sometimes, to say to your population that there is no real solution now. Very hard especially during election time. Very hard during an economic crisis. In response, as you explain, it’s quicker to try to reduce the gap by increasing public spending in job, training and education programs.

    Back to the theory. More I think about it, more I agree to it. When politics said, unemployed need to be trained to fit to the demand, it’s just the application of the theory. When, and you tell also this, a master degree doesn’t find job, it’s also just the application of the theory.

    So the real question is not if this problem is real but how to fight it.

    To tackle it, there is not one solution but there are some ways to explore. In my mind, innovation and entrepreneurship are the first. At this time, it’s the best way to be ahead of the technology. So technology can’t replace you. And that’s why I have the same mentality and the same aim as you, Michael, a kind of “if you can’t beat them, join them” as you said.

    Second way, focusing on some subjects. Technologies cover many subjects. But some questions still unanswered because techs don’t touch enough them. However, these questions can be answered only by focusing on them. It’s when I agree with Adele when she said that consulting and contracting on specific niche areas will grow.

    Third way, rethinking about the society. It looks like utopia at first but it’s may be a solution. Technology reduces the number of jobs. Innovation and entrepreneurship may can’t create enough jobs for everyone. Maybe this last idea is wrong (I wait your opinion on it). So the core question is this: can we imagine a society where some people doesn’t have job and lived thanks to other members’ contributions? It’s possible and may be it’s already the case but there are too many questions asked back: Which member? How to make it work? How to finance it fairly?  

    As a conservative, I’m embarrassed by this idea. I always think that everyone must contribute to the society to have an help from it. The notion of exchange is at the heart of my vision of the society. But at this time, I agree that the last way is in contradiction to my values and general ideas.