Amid the concern around the automation of jobs, a long-standing truism has perhaps been overlooked. Whilst the likes of the Frey and Osborne paper predicted a pretty widespread demolition of 47% of all jobs, the reality is that those with low-skilled, routine jobs are far more at risk.
The thing is, those with low skills have been on the receiving end of pretty much every shift in the labor market over the past decade. For instance, MIT research found that not only has the recent economic recovery generally passed low-skilled workers by, the same has been true for much of the last 50 years. Since the financial crisis, jobs have returned en masse, with 300,000 or so created in December alone, with income rising at a similar pace. That is not true for low-skilled work however, as incomes for this group have barely moved for 50 years!
What’s more, when jobs return after a recession or other economic shock, they are nearly always requiring higher skills than before the shock. Far from being a destroyer of jobs therefore, what technology does seem to do is help inequality between those with skills and those without.
Rising inequality
A good example of this comes from a recently published study from the University of California, Los Angeles, which explores how technology (in the broadest sense) has affected wages over the years. The research examined the introduction of something as relatively mundane as broadband into Brazil between 2000 and 2009.
It revealed that the technology coincided with an increase in wages across the labor market, but whereas the average employee saw wages rise by just 2.3%, those in managerial positions saw a 9% rise, and those in the boardroom saw an even more impressive 19% boost to the income. The hypothesis proposed by the researchers is that the new technology allowed the more productive workers to be even more productive, thus widening the income gap between them.
This is common with most new technologies, as it tends to improve the relative position of skilled workers. In other words, technology often does the routine tasks for us, thus allowing highly-skilled people to focus more on non-routine, abstract tasks that really set them apart. The routine tasks are often the bread and butter of the low-skilled worker however, so the new technology harms their prospects.
Unequal skills
This unequal boost to earnings from new technologies is compounded by incredibly unequal digital skills. Back in 2016, the OECD found that over 50% of adults could only just complete the most basic of digital skills. They could write an email, but spreadsheets or word processing were largely beyond them.
What’s more, there is little sign that those skills are going to be developed. In 2017 a report from the UK government explored both attitudes and access to adult education among those with low skill levels.
The report reveals that adult education in the UK is declining, and participation declines more as we age. What’s more, those that do engage in education as adults tend to be wealthier and come from a high existing skill level.
Those with fewer qualifications to begin with would often cite barriers such as a lack of confidence, lack of interest and a sense that they’re too old.
So what can be done? A good place to start is in the early educational opportunities that people receive. The report found that the single biggest predictor of later participation in education is earlier participation. In other words, if people enjoyed learning at school and found it interesting and engaging, then they are more likely to carry that on into adult life.
Those from lower socioeconomic groups could also benefit from more support to help them learn effectively. For instance, while people of all sorts encountered barriers to learning, those from higher socioeconomic groups were better able to overcome those barriers, whereas those from lower socioeconomic groups succumbed to them.
The report also commends the route being taken by many MOOC platforms of breaking down courses into more manageable chunks that can allow a more flexible approach to learning that allows the student to overcome time pressures.
They also advocate adopting a unique approach to targeting specific groups. For instance, face-to-face contact is particularly valuable in engaging new learners, especially if it comes from intermediary bodies with strong roots in the local community.
“A longitudinal study of people who had undertaken community learning courses in the UK found that many benefits, including improved basic skills and motivation to apply for work, were felt most strongly among learners who lacked qualifications, came from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and/or lived in the most deprived areas,” the report says.
Inequality as a result of technological innovation isn’t a forgone conclusion, but it’s clear that society as a whole needs to get much better at improving the skills development of all citizens if the dividend is to be spread more widely. Sadly, there is little evidence that governments even understand this dilemma, much less are actively looking to address it.
