When will you be replaced by a robot? The good news is that automation will eliminate few occupations during the next decade, according to a paper titled “Where machines could replace humans—and where they can’t (yet),” by Michael Chui, James Manyika, and Mehdi Miremadi at McKinsey. The bad news is that automation will affect almost all jobs to a greater or lesser degree.
“Automation, now going beyond routine manufacturing activities, has the potential, at least with regard to its technical feasibility, to transform sectors such as healthcare and finance, which involve a substantial share of knowledge work,” the authors write.
They continue, “Last year, we showed that currently demonstrated technologies could automate 45% of the activities people are paid to perform and that about 60% of all occupations could see 30% or more of their constituent activities automated, again with technologies available today.”
Technical feasibility, not surprisingly, depends on the amount of predictable physical work involved. Welding or soldering on an assembly line, food preparation, and packaging have a technical feasibility of 78%, the authors report. If you want a job whose technical feasibility of automation is only 25%, you might try construction, forestry, or raising outdoor animals.
Earlier research that I reported on in 2013 suggested 47% of total U.S. employment was at risk of computerization, although other research showed that employment gains in distribution and services were outpacing manufacturing jobs lost. The McKinsey paper, however, suggests that jobs in distribution and services are not or won’t remain resistant to automation. For example, they note that predictable physical activities figure prominently in food service, making jobs in that area susceptible to automation, at least from a technical perspective.
They write, “Manufacturing, for all its technical potential, is only the second most readily automatable sector in the U.S. economy. A service sector occupies the top spot: accommodations and food service, where almost half of all labor time involves predictable physical activities and the operation of machinery—including preparing, cooking, or serving food; cleaning food-preparation areas; preparing hot and cold beverages; and collecting dirty dishes. According to our analysis, 73% of the activities workers perform in food service and accommodations have the potential for automation, based on technical considerations.” They note that automats have long been in use.
The good news, at least for those in food services, is that not all jobs that can be technically automated will be. The authors note that broader economic factors come into play—such as the cost of automation.
The authors say they have observed a tendency for higher rates of automation in middle-skill jobs in, for example, data processing and data collection, where the automation requires only software and a basic computer. “As automation advances in capability, jobs involving higher skills will probably be automated at increasingly high rates,” they add.
The authors have analyzed more than 800 occupations to assess their susceptibility to automation; you can access their data interactively on Tableau Public. McKinsey plans to release full results in early 2017.
Political implications
David Ignatius at The Washington Post extends the argument to the political domain in an August 11 column titled “The brave new world of robots and lost jobs.” “Job insecurity is a central theme of the 2016 campaign, fueling popular anger about trade deals and immigration,” he writes. “But economists warn that much bigger job losses are ahead in the United States—driven not by foreign competition but by advancing technology.”
He continues, “A look at the numbers suggests that the country is having the wrong economic debate this year. Employment security won’t come from renegotiating trade deals, as Donald Trump said in a speech Monday in Detroit, or rebuilding infrastructure, as Hillary Clinton argued in Warren, MI, on Thursday.”
The challenge, he says, is “…to provide meaningful work and good wages for the tens of millions of truck drivers, accountants, factory workers, and office clerks whose jobs will disappear in coming years because of robots, driverless vehicles, and ‘machine learning’ systems.”
He advises that people shouldn’t hate the future or the technologists who are building it but warns that anger could become a fixture of the national mood.
“Politicians need to begin thinking boldly, now, about a world in which driverless vehicles replace most truck drivers’ jobs, and where factories are populated by robots, not human beings,” he concludes. “The best way to cushion this future is to start planning for how Americans will be able to take care of their families—and find meaningful work—in a world where most traditional jobs have vanished.”
