SCIENCE POLICY
Impact of Technology on Employment Probed shot in an ΝΑΕ effort to deal with this complex subject. A study that will take about two years to complete is being organized, at NAE's request, by the Committee on Science, Engi neering & Public Policy (COSEPUP), a committee sponsored jointly by ΝΑΕ, the National Academy of Sci ences, and the academy's Institute of Medicine. Richard J. Seltzer, C&EN Washington The symposium will supply the "A revolution is coming, not only in the study panel with abundant infor workforce, but in the management mation and questions, notes the force—especially middle manage symposium chairman, John L. McLucas, president of COMSAT ment." "Many people regard the microelec world systems division. Among the tronics revolution as a unique event. It's key questions discussed: a kind of watershed. It's like the intro • What are current and likely fu duction of railroads, which not only ture trends in technology that will provided transportation, but a whole affect employment opportunities? reorganization of society. I think we're • What has been the impact so far facing another radical step that is going of these trends, and what is it likely to change the face of our society." to be in the future? "There is a fundamental change hap • What can be done to aid and ease pening in front of us, namely, the con the changes, and what should the fluence of three new technologies— federal government do? semiconductors, computers, and com Keynote speaker Wassily Leontief, munications—and the merging of the Nobel Laureate in Economics and three. Each one probably would not have director of the Institute for Economic the same effect as a combination of all Analysis at New York University, three will have on our lives and on in pointed out that the industrial revo dustry." lution triggered by the invention of the steam engine has run its course; These comments at a recent National the age now starting will be domi Academy of Engineering symposium nated by the electronic chip. This in Washington, D.C., reflect the far- new wave of technological innova reaching changes that are coming to tion "will carry us forward at least as U.S. offices, factories, and labs. They fast and as far as the last," he em also reflect a growing concern about phasizes. However, he adds, to make the effects of these changes on lives full use of the opportunities, eco and livelihoods. nomic, social, and cultural institu The subject of the symposium was tions probably will have to change as "The Long-Term Impact of Tech radically as during the transition nology on Employment and Unem from preindustrial to industrial so ployment." Dedicated to outgoing ciety. ΝΑΕ president Courtland D. Perkins, Computers and robots are replac the symposium brought together ing humans in the exercise of mental speakers from management, labor, functions in the same way that ma government, and academia. The chinery based on mechanical power symposium was only the opening replaced humans in performance of
ΝΑΕ symposium starts off study of radical effects of computer revolution on jobs and economic, social, and cultural systems
Leontief: age of the electronic chip physical tasks. "Any worker who now performs a task by following specific instructions can, in principle, be replaced by a machine," Leontief says. Indeed, points out Roland W. Schmitt, senior vice president for corporate R&D at General Electric, the emerging generation of elec tronics—very-large-scale integra tion—will put hundreds of thou sands of electronic switches on a sil icon chip only a centimeter on a side. And the chips will be able to handle much more complex circuits, from robot controls to mobile communi cations to medical diagnostics. In fact, stresses Dennis Chamot, assistant director of the Department for Professional Employees of the AFL-CIO, current technology changes in the workplace differ from those in the past: Computers and microchips permit massive qualita tive changes, instead of the slow August 1, 1983 C&EN
23
Science Policy piecemeal changes of past innovations. Observers now discuss "peopleless factories" and "paperless offices," both with far fewer workers. Indeed, Chamot says, "We are faced with nothing less than the redefinition of work." The U.S. may be entering a period of a permanent labor surplus, he points out. Leontief throws some cold water on the idea that a worker who loses his or her job in one industry can necessarily expect to find employment, after appropriate retraining, in another industry. For example, he points out, "Before beginning to teach 250,000 idle automobile workers how to operate word processors and computers, it would be advisable to estimate how many new job openings of this kind can be expected to appear, and in what industries"—including what will happen in five or 10 years when labor-saving models are introduced. Irving Bluestone, a professor of labor studies at Wayne State University, also doubts that as many jobs will be created as are destroyed. For example, one projection says that by the year 2000, employment in manufacturing will drop from the current 22% of the labor force to only 3 to 5%, and he believes that many of the jobs that will be created will be relatively low paying. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that the number of high-technology jobs created over the next decade will be less than the number of manufacturing jobs lost during the next three years. However, technology enthusiast Schmitt takes a more optimistic view. He asks how you predict the new jobs that will be available in industries and occupations that have not yet been created. For example, he suggests that there may be a new profession of "quantum mechanical materials engineers" to help create new materials. And he believes that there will be great opportunities for employment in industries that use products of the new technology, such as very-large-scale integration chips, microprocessors, and plastics. Much of the labor force is shifting to service industries. However, Leontief points out, computerization and automation can replace human mental functions even faster in service industries than in the old 24
August 1, 1983 C&EN
Chamot: peopleless factories smokestack industries. So he believes that the long-term outlook is for declining labor demand in services. McLucas notes that the usual focus of discussion is blue-collar workers put out of jobs by technological developments. However, he points out, new computer and informationprocessing technology will create unemployment problems for middle management, as well. For instance, at COMSAT key executives will be able to use their personal computers to call up information and analyze it directly, rather than referring questions to staff members. The company then can eliminate the high overhead cost of maintaining a staff of several hundred people "whose only job is to be smart enough to answer management's questions." The end result, Chamot believes, may be a degree of polarization: Some jobs could be made more flexible and challenging, whereas others may be simplified and dissected, and require lower levels of skill. Harley Shaiken, a research associate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's department of science, technology, and society, points out that California's "Silicon Valley" has gone that route, with a small number of highly paid, creative jobs at the top, and a large number of low-paid workers at the bottom, with little in between.
As to what can or should be done about technology-caused unemployment, Leontief stresses that leaving the problem to "the invisible hand of the competitive system"— that is, to the forces of supply and demand in a free market—will not solve the problem. On the contrary, Bluestone argues, this would inflict enormous hardship upon millions of workers and their families and communities. Therefore, Bluestone suggests establishing "a rational, national industrial policy," a concept now discussed in many quarters. This would include "a system of democratic economic planning," in which government, management, and labor cooperate to develop incentives for constructive direction of the economy and specific industries. It would establish vocational training and retraining programs (supplementing private sector activities), develop a public sector jobs program aimed at refurbishing the deteriorating U.S. infrastructure, encourage R&D strategies directed toward creating new industries and strengthening existing ones, update the educational system to provide the learning tools needed, and provide cultural and recreational opportunities for increased leisure time. Meanwhile, Leontief and Chamot suggest another path, involving major changes in social policy—labor sharing. Instead of having some people fully employed and others totally unemployed, they propose sharing the work among all by shortening the workweek and working hours, lowering retirement ages, and other methods. Strong objection to government intervention was expressed by William A. Niskanen, a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. He sees no evidence of any significant long-term impact of work technology on the level of employment and unemployment. He sees no need for government or "collective decisions or direction" to deal with adjustments to technological changes. He would instead leave these adjustments to individuals and decentralized institutions, except for the federal government's current support of education, research, and other relevant activities. D
