Does technological progress promise human prosperity or increase inequality?

Technological advances have brought prosperity to humanity, but they have also devalued labour and increased income inequality. We should pay attention to the possibility that future technological advances will replace human labour, further widening economic disparities.

 

It’s an age of abundance. Industries that have made great strides since the Industrial Revolution are once again taking giant leaps forward thanks to advances in digitalised technology. Things we used to think of as science fiction are becoming a reality. Cars that don’t require a human driver have already been developed, advances in Siri have automated much of customer service, and in warehouses, machines are taking over the jobs that used to be done by people walking down the aisles. There are countless new technologies that have made our lives easier. If we look at economic metrics, not just in isolation, but in the bigger picture, we can see that technological advances have enriched us. Labour productivity is growing at a faster rate over time, with workers producing more while working fewer hours. GDP is growing every year, and so are the intangible assets that aren’t included in GDP. Intellectual and organisational capital, user-generated content or human capital have all grown in both quantity and quality.
However, in The Second Machine Age, the authors acknowledge the abundance brought about by technological advances, but point out that technology replacing human labour reduces the value of workers. They go further to argue that we should avoid trying to compete with technology and that in the future we should focus on the role of technology as a ‘complement’ to human labour, and think about increasing the input of human labour alongside technological advances. However, if we look at the path that technology has taken, we can see that it has evolved from being able to mimic the simplest of human behaviours, to having the five senses of seeing, hearing and feeling, to being able to think and make judgements. Experts predict that by 2045, artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence. Technology has evolved, and will continue to evolve, to do human work for itself, which is why it will inevitably become a ‘replacement’.
Even now, technological progress threatens human affluence. The wages of middle-wage workers, often referred to as the middle class, have barely increased in recent decades, while the incomes of those in the top 1 per cent have grown enormously. The few designers and engineers who develop technologies that take over human jobs – or, more accurately, do them better – become billionaires, while many people in those jobs become unemployed because they are no longer competitive. Differences in education levels create differences in demand, and differences in wages are increasing. This skill-biased technological change has increased income inequality and widened the gap. In addition, current technological advances that have enabled “anywhere, anytime” have given more people a wider range of choices, and consumers only need to choose the one that is relatively better. In the past, you could pay a labourer who could do 80 jobs 80 wages because of the limited supply in a competitive market, but now you only need to buy the one programme with the best features. The era of winner-take-all markets, where relative advantage can lead to absolute advantage, has begun, and this is where the problem arises. While technological advances increase GDP, it’s largely an increase in income for the top few per cent, leaving the median income largely unchanged.
The nature of new technologies is that they replace human labour. As Andrew McAfee said in his talk, ‘The development of androids frees us from drudgery and monotony.’ If humans can be freed from menial labour, then the time spent on menial labour can be spent on more creative and innovative things. Things like creators and innovators coming up with better ideas and having productive discussions for the betterment of society. In other words, the development of technology has opened up a path of endless possibilities for the development of human society by giving humans the opportunity to ‘focus’.
Nevertheless, we need to be a little more careful about technology replacing human labour. When the Industrial Revolution introduced countless machines into factories, factory workers were deeply concerned that machines would take their jobs, leading to the Luddite movement. However, contrary to their initial expectations, the Industrial Revolution created countless new jobs and humanity achieved full employment. However, the present is essentially different from then. The combination of big data technology and artificial intelligence has made surveyors obsolete, and the development of artificial intelligence response systems is expected to make even counselling services obsolete. Some people are vaguely optimistic that these situations will be solved by the creation of some new jobs that we don’t expect, just like the situation after the industrial revolution. Of course, new jobs will arise as new technologies emerge, but not as many new jobs as the jobs they replace. For example, Kodak used to be a major player in the photography industry, employing hundreds of thousands of people around the world, but with the advent of user-generated content, Instagram, Kodak soon went bankrupt and became a footnote in history, with only a dozen employees. This is because the technologies of recent years have inherently different capabilities than before. The fact that machines that can speak, hear, see, understand, write, and respond can almost completely replace humans suggests that we are in a crisis unlike anything seen since the Industrial Revolution.
Some people focus on the numbers and argue that even if inequality in income distribution exists, human life as a whole is improving, so we shouldn’t see the widening gap as a problem. This is a very serious issue: inequality is perpetuated. Increasingly, it’s impossible to move between classes, and children can’t escape the same predicament as their parents across generations. And income inequality, which stems from technological advances, can also stifle economic growth. We don’t know where innovation will come from, and if everyone is not given a level playing field, we are squandering our potential for innovation. Prosperity comes from innovation, and the lack of creativity in capitalism is a cause for concern. It should also not be overlooked that economic inequality can lead to political inequality when it persists. A social structure that is dominated by the participation of a small elite can never be considered healthy and may collapse at any moment.
In conclusion, technological advancement has laid the foundation for human prosperity and affluence so far, but it will no longer guarantee human happiness. I am not advocating that we stop technological advancement now, but I am saying that in recognising the reality, we should not simply look at economic indicators and be optimistic about the future of humanity, but should also pay attention to the widening gap, feel a sense of crisis in the age of technological advancement, and be interested in creating a more stable and healthy society with proper redistribution of wealth and equal opportunities.