Robots Need Not Apply: Say's Law and the Work We Really Want

Recently there have been quite a number of discussions about the growing effect of robots on the workforce, and Robin Hanson (of Overcoming Bias) listed a short summary at a recent post for all who are interested. Hanson - along with the other discussants referenced here -  holds views on the future which are quite different from my own, but what was interesting for me is that he doesn't believe we are near as close to any potential singularity, or "rise of the robots", as some might believe. Certainly, technology has been well positioned to take on more and more repetitive tasks and even some non repetitive, but robots are not quite ready to take on the more important tasks of our lives. And even if they were... then what? The choice really is ours, and the way to reclaim the work we want comes from the most unexpected of places: a reclamation of Say's Law, which in simple form could be stated as supply creates its own demand. Say's Law could apply to services just as well as manufactured products, with more thoughtful use of our own aggregate time commitments, and the use of nominal targeting.,

Where to begin? First, it helps to put aside all unnecessary complexities and look at this with a "beginner's mind". For instance: Keynesians are right to say that Say's Law has been put through the shredder, but I guarantee you that is nothing to be proud of. Nothing makes sense if people have to give up on finding demand for the supply of their own skill and effort. Instead of people gaining value from their own merits, artificial limitations to knowledge use now have us viewing one another primarily as competitors for both scarce resources and jobs.Yes, certain resources will always be scarce. But those generally are not the ones we need every day. Many important services that are even more important than actual product, were also set up to appear as though scarce. Because we didn't realize we could become our own suppliers/providers of knowledge and skills services, the demand for them now has people backed up in "waiting rooms" of all kinds...the modern day equivalent of standing in lines for manufactured goods, in the twentieth century.

To be sure, there is plenty of work to share with the robots which readily take repetitive tasks of all kinds, including highly technical and demanding ones. Eventually, there could be robots for much repetitive work, but  some of those tasks will always remain worth keeping for ourselves. The main problem for us is that we have not quite thought through - monetarily speaking - how best to apportion a growing amount of the work we want and need most for a productive society.  Part of the present problems with central bank transmission mechanisms reflect earlier default settings for services provisions which are no longer adequate. Before we look at more effective ways to utilize our time, there are four categories that we will eventually want to either integrate into our routines or assign to robots: high skill non repetitive, low skill non repetitive, high skill repetitive and low skill repetitive. This is a dialogue that all need to take part in, and it should not be rushed.

The problem we face now is that we are trying to take on increasing amounts of life's challenges with neither money or economic measure. Some efforts happen in volunteer settings where only a fraction of potential clientele are served. Some is work that doesn't get counted as economic activity because it takes place within our families, friends or extended networks. What's important here is that there are times when we need to be able to accomplish such tasks beyond our own circles of activity, especially when our existing institutions continue to "outsource" portions of their activities to us on a regular basis, in spite of our full schedules. Whatever coordinated systems we eventually create, need to address that growing reality. Institutions can't remain strong by robbing individuals of their limited time, robots or not.

Some of the more challenging aspects of work might also exist as informal coordinated scaffolding of sorts, for the growing challenges our institutions cannot handle. This is why rights to knowledge use is so important. Otherwise, we will not be able to fill in for our institutions when they do fall short, and we certainly would not be able to reimburse ourselves monetarily. Institutions presently capture knowledge use within their bounds in ways that make it difficult for people to work together to find solutions, or even to perform the simplest volunteer functions inside of institutional settings. No amount of robots and outsourcing is really going to substitute for the mental challenges between institutions which we will always need to take part in. Likewise, there will always be important research projects that present day limitations on investments and tax collection cannot address.

Rights to knowledge use also allow us to reflect the best of civilization wherever we are, even to the point that a small town setting is fully capable of becoming a mirror of the world around it. Without rights to knowledge use, the individual is not capable of actualizing the wealth potential that took such time and resource use. With clear and designated rights, an entrepreneurial understanding as to arbitrage would also gain social settings where preferences and wants can often be dealt with on a one to one basis. Like the free markets and bureaucratic orders of the present, such preferences could be expressed both in timed and ongoing, spontaneous settings. Knowledge can only become an abundant good when we actually give ourselves the right to use it, otherwise austerity remains a constant threat in the background, even when it is constrained.

Applying Say's Law to arbitrage of our most basic obligations and skills sets is also a good stabilization strategy overall. No  nation can readily control the vagaries of commodity changes and circumstances, but the social aspects of our lives do not change so quickly, which is why they need special consideration now. Even though what we are able to do also depends on the resources at our disposal, the aggregate value of our time is the best anchor, even if a lack of complexity in one's economy makes it difficult for income and consumption to be the prime monetary representation. Plus, whenever populations feel positive about coordination in economic relations, efforts to maintain such coordination in resource use are also more likely to come to fruition. The better we are able to measure all economic activity, the better off we are.