2024 Week 37: Technological Unemployment

September 15, 2024

2024 Week 37: Technological Unemployment

Lately I have been thinking about technological unemployment. I know. Sexy. It worries me that the situation has already progressed pretty far along, yet no one I know seems to have the vocabulary or tools to deal with it.

Stories about chatGPT/AI putting writers/creative out of work are seductive and simplistic. But personally, I think the death had already begun when I started working in the 2010s. My writing/editing career started at a time when publishers were only just starting to take notice of internet traffic. "Hey guys, we keep getting site visits from our Top 10 Brunch Restaurants in Singapore article. Should we do more of those?"

That was when journalism went into a vegetative state. We went from juicy feature stories about chefs and restaurateurs and the scene, to mindless Top 10 lists. The monetisation value of traffic meant a change in editorial mindset. Instead of unearthing stories and being the arbiters of taste, we began to create content tailored by existing data on what people want on search and social media. "The algorithm." "The audience." These are the gods that an editor must invoke today.

In that era it was still a thing for writers to barter. "Okay, I'll write that loathsome Top 10 Hotel Buffets article if you let me do an opinion piece about how F&B landlords are fucking evil." Today? Forget it.

Incidentally, 90% of the writers and editors I have worked, many of whom were brilliant, with are now doing corp comms, social media management, or something else entirely.

As automation takes over larger portions of work there will be 2 distinct groups of workers remaining.

The first are people doing "uncomputerisable" work. Although in theory nothing is quite uncomputerisable, we can imagine jobs in which humanity is a desired trait and/or main feature. In A World Without Work, the Atlantic's Derek Thompson cites jobs like coaches, therapists and influencers (these days, you're likely to find all 3 in one). Oh, then there are those high-prestige non-jobs like CEOs which exist to inflate the egos of the big boys' club and to give peons something to aspire too I guess.

The other group consists of "mechanical Turks", doing work like driving, couriering, delivering, logistics, sorting, packing shelves, construction etc. These tasks can be automated with the right machinery, but people can remain in these roles because (for the time being) it's cheaper to use human labour. No consumer particularly wants a human to do the task; I would be just as satisfied if a self-driving robot delivered my McDonald's. In other words, humanity is not central to this kind of work.

So a group of high-prestige AI-proof workers and another group of workers who are literally there only because they're cheaper than machines. I wonder what sort of society that would be.

In between the 2 ends of the spectrum, we'll also have many mid-level jobs that can only be described as mish-mashes of different trad jobs. Partly that's because a lot of routine work can be automated or done easily with AI. So instead of hiring an entire marketing team, you could just get a young person to make marketing collaterals on Canva, manage the social media accounts, answer the door and have chatGPT write some articles.

I've been collecting some of these hybrid jobs with Joel's help. One was user research + customer service + facility ops. Another: fundraising + finance back-end + advocacy + events + communications. I think the widest one was a role with research + project management + content + events + market research + community management + business development.

My gut feel is that such roles are aimed at younger workers. Gen Z workers are, in general, pretty open and skilled at a wide variety of tasks. A young lady told me she has done everything from "fun TikToks" to Shopee livestreams to annual reports to social media posts as part of her comms job. Resourceful young person who can do everything = employable. Older worker with one established area of expertise = not so employable.

That Derek Thompson article I talked about also mentions a few intersecting possibilities for humans after technological unemployment.

1) People spend their newfound leisure time on entertainment, leading to a rise in popularity/demand for ever-more immersive and cognitively-demanding forms. Like gaming.

2) Growth of a pseudo-artisan class, where unemployed people turn to "handicraft" type work such as making things and cooking to occupy their time. This, Thompson says, would be a return to pre-industrial societies where most people lives in farms and were not "employed" in the modern sense. However, they were busy with their hands, with chores like husbandry, farming, canning, sewing and carpentry.

3) Widespread underemployment, where many many people do little bits of work (most likely below their education/skill level) such as part-time jobs, gigs, and platform work. Multiple income streams are the norm. There's also the possibility that some of the income streams are borne from "passion" e.g. selling your poetry.

I can definitely see the latter happening. My SUTD contact Nadia, who is researching the future of work, meets a lot of people with unusual work combinations, "mixed collar" in nature. Dog walker + course trainer + Grab driver. Photographer/designer + delivery rider.

Basic income is one solution to technological unemployment. I read Guy Standing's Basic Income. (I have linked an essay that conveys the general argument and counter-arguments.)

For me (an unalloyed supporter of the concept) the most interesting part of the book is where he examines what happens to labour if everyone gets a stipend. Will free money be the death of work? The short answer is: no. Because the basic income is only basic, many people would still be motivated to work to earn money for a higher standard of living. Meanwhile others turn to care and/or community work.

I got my own small taste of basic income this year. I had 2 clients parking their bunnies with me long-term, so my "basic income" has been about $1,200 a month.

This covers my basic expenses and then some - quite a comfortable standard of living, I might add. I wanted to say that having guaranteed income has made me "lazy" - but no, by "lazy" I really just mean "secure". Because I have been hustling with at least 2 income streams for the past couple of years, it's definitely been a good rest.

After the initial bask in temporary financial security, there was a slight rejig in priorities. I spent more time on housework and cooking. I spent more time with my parents especially since my mum's been unwell this year. I read nonfiction and wrote more on Substack. I also did an internship at Beyond and am continuing to freelance for them. This latter bit of work pays $300-400 a month; I would probably not have been able to do it if finances were a priority.

I also put more energy into making friends and maintaining friendships. Through social activities I have met other people doing creative sabbaticals, and I realised that being willing to spend time and money on your creativity, or other non-work interests, makes a huge difference - it's like giving your true self (not the employed self) a right to exist.

It got me thinking that although my consumption power is not very high, I still manage to spend on things that are important and good for me. My basic income gives me just enough to lubricate the wheels of creativity and well-being.

Also, as you can see, "work" did not cease. However, work- or job-seeking while your financial needs are already met is different. Where I previously wanted a job to tick all the boxes (money, interest, etc.) I began to see a divergence between (a) work I do out of interest vs (b) work I do for money. Meeting Braema, a seasoned freelancer and activist reinforced this idea. For the past 18 years she has used the (b) category to fund the (a) work, and maybe that's what makes this lifestyle sustainable.