A full employment society is essential

Le Regard Libre N° 38 - Nicolas Jutzet

In his latest book, Work is man's future, Nicolas Bouzou draws on economics, history and philosophy. The verdict is clear: the end of work is neither enviable nor conceivable. Its transformation is.

The French economist dates the first struggle against technical progress to the reign of the second Roman emperor, Tiberius, from 14 to 37 AD. A craftsman presented him with his latest invention: unbreakable glass. To prove his point, he demonstrates it to the emperor. Thrown to the ground, the glass did not break. Amazed, the emperor asked him if others knew how to make this revolutionary glass. Proud of himself, the worker exclaims no. Reassured, but far from pleased, the emperor made the discovery disappear, fearing that this novelty would bring bronze, gold and silver into disrepute.

Every period of creative destruction awakens corporatist violence that confuses special interests with justice.

In short, we've always been afraid of the end of work. Either out of convenience or ignorance. Today, it's much easier to defend the idea of the end of work than to set about finding answers to the fundamental changes that are underway. Too often, feeding the end-of-work thesis masks a petty lack of courage. Explaining to people that the world is changing, that reforms are needed to bring unemployment down to its structural rate, will always be more risky and ambitious than defending an unconditional basic income that is supposed to endorse the end of work, even though it is not backed up by any real figures.

Eternal repetition

Since 2000, the International Labour Office has been measuring the unemployment rate. At the time of its first statistic, it stood at 6.4% of the working population over 15 years of age. In 2016? AT 5.8%! After peaking in the wake of the financial crisis, which turned the whole economy upside down, the rate is now normalizing. At the same time, the working population has risen from 2.8 to 3.4 billion over the same period.

While the idea of associating the arrival of weak artificial intelligence and robots with the announced end of the need for human labor may seem seductive, it too runs up against the reality of the figures. Unemployment is lowest in countries with the most robots per 10,000 inhabitants, not the other way round. The new model that is emerging gives a central place to human beings, in complementarity with machines.

By placing ourselves behind the «veil of ignorance» cited by John Rawls in his theory of justice, we have to admit that, beyond our personal destiny, progress globally consists of a necessary evil, insofar as it benefits humanity. Destruction is creative, as Schumpeter explained. It's clear that some jobs will be totally or partially automated in the years to come. In fact, the BBC has set up an online tool that lets you find out what the risk is for your job.

The new is not born of the old, but alongside it, competing with it to the point of killing it.

Let's focus on the factors that will enable the people concerned to make the grade, to avoid the temporary technological unemployment that some sectors may experience. Emmanuel Macron refuses the term «reform», preferring to speak of transformation. With the same pedagogical approach, the next step is to understand fears, allay them and respond to them. With ambition and strength. Concretely, with adaptations of the model to accompany evolution, and not with simplistic, populist measures such as a tax on robots, closing borders or focusing on foreigners. Let's base our will on improving productivity, which boils down to doing better than we're doing now, to achieve not quantitative, but qualitative growth. This is the condition sine qua non for progress to be profitable in the long term. Job destruction is even a sign of economic vitality. Only an economy that adapts to the evolution of its clientele is healthy.

Putting the brakes on job destruction also puts the brakes on job creation.

Canuts« yesterday, cabs today

In the nineteenth century^th In the 19th century, resistance was met with violence. In both the UK and France, history records the vandalism of the «Luddites» and «Canuts» in Lyon. The latter, horrified by the arrival of machines, decided that all they had to do to remedy progress was to destroy it. Corporatism was the front line; progress would above all benefit others. To borrow another title from Bouzou, «you can hear the tree falling, but not the forest growing».

Today, faced with the emergence of new platforms in the sharing economy, the same resistances are appearing, and sometimes violence. Admittedly, the Uber and Airbnb models are not perfect. It relies on the flaws of legislation that lags behind progress - like the state - and will always gallop faster than a parliament. But to oppose, as a large part of the left is demanding today, these advances that make life easier for the customer - the success of these platforms is proof of this and is by far not limited to the simple fact of being cheaper than the traditional offer - is historical nonsense.

Let's look at the benefits of different players entering a market. Let's face it, the security and ease of use offered by the Uber app gives us all a guarantee of a transparent offer that no one offered in the past. The tourist was a captive customer, at the mercy of local cabs' trickery; no more! Ordinary citizens choked when faced with an obviously exaggerated bill and the impossibility of paying by card; no more!

Generally speaking, the platforms that are emerging are trying to manage our property and our time more rationally. Making your apartment or car available during off-peak periods: simple common sense mixed with efficiency. The traditional players who, in the face of this new competition, are trying to maintain their advantages through the law, are on the wrong track. Instead of denouncing the flexibility enjoyed by the newcomers, it is urgent to adapt this model to the old players, enabling them to offer their services in line with the needs of both their customers and their employees. Furthermore, a study quoted in the book demonstrates - and debunks the idea that it would compete directly with established players - that the Airbnb platform acts as a complement, not a replacement.

Humanity's comparative advantages

Faced with the emergence of weak artificial intelligence (AI), humans need to ask themselves what they can do better. Emphasis should be placed on occupations requiring strong social interaction and artistic creativity. Elsewhere, according to the «Moravec paradox», humans also retain a clear advantage in activities requiring good sensory-motor coordination.

AI can beat man at extremely complex games, but it's hard for a machine to think up a joke.

In the future, jobs in the healthcare sector and more generally in the care will increasingly be at the heart of human activity. In the future, it will be human capital that makes the difference. Far from ending the tumultuous relationship between work and man, progress will enable the latter to refocus on its most human aspects.

In his conclusion, Nicolas Bouzou sums up perfectly what should motivate us all:

Let's dream of a world where workers, whether salaried or not, don't want to retire. Let's dream of a world where we work ourselves to death, because work keeps death at bay. Let's dream of a world where we dislike Sunday, not because it precedes Monday, but because it passes too slowly. Let's dream of a world where the harshness of waking up on dark winter mornings is offset by the motivation to go out and build the world.

Write to the author : nicolas.jutzet@leregardlibre.com