The debate around automation technologies eliminating jobs has been going on for decades—for centuries, one could argue if the discussion is framed more generally around the impact of technology on jobs.
In all of these discussions recently, there’s been no shortage of data to show that, in fact, technology does indeed eliminate a portion of existing jobs. In some cases, this elimination occurs during a short period of time; in other cases, it takes place over decades.
There also typically exists a corresponding amount of data highlighting all the new jobs and industries created by the very technologies that eliminated or changed the previously existing jobs. These data often show that, over time at least, the new technology tends to be a net creator of jobs, i.e., more jobs are produced by the new technology introduction than are lost.
当然，主要的外卖是，推进技术对就业的影响不是零和方程（正如我在这方面所写的那样博客文章last year). Given that, the principal question before us is not whether automation (or any technological advance) is good or bad for jobs—if human history has shown us anything it’s that technological progress is inexorable. The question is: Can we handle the transition better than we have in the past?
当你缺点这个问题变得更加重要ider the speed at which new, disruptive technologies are being introduced and embraced by industries of all types. That’s at the core of what we’re really talking about today when we talk about automation taking away jobs.
毕竟，消除了技术甚至整个行业的技术证据很丰富。今天的不同是现在发生这种情况的速度。
With respect to current industrial automation technologies, as well as the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in conjunction with automation, the“Automation and Artificial Intelligence” report from the Brookings Institutionsuggests that answering this question is best approached by looking first at the jobs most at risk of being impacted by automation. Examining the potential for automation and average wage of each job type, the Brookings Institution’s report highlights the industries, job types and people most likely to be impacted by automation in the near term.
例如，具有自动化和AI影响最高潜力的职业是包装和填充机器运营商和招标（100％自动化潜力）和食品制备工人（91％）。相反，从自动化和AI的最低潜在影响的工作是家庭健康助手（11％），软件开发商（8％）和管理分析师（4％）。
Essentially, the threat automation poses to a job boils down to the tasks required by that job. Routine, predictable and repeatable tasks are at the highest risk of automation. Tasks that require creativity, analysis and response to unpredictability are at the lowest risk of being automated.
With the most susceptible jobs identified, the next question is: How fast will this transition occur?
在Brookings报告中，来自麦肯锡的数据预测，“技术自动化潜力使2030年主要进步，随着2040年或2050年达到2040年的全部潜力。”根据麦肯锡考虑的一系列因素，报告指出，全面采用可能会发生2065年末，而不是2050或2040。
虽然这些日期中的一些可能似乎很遥远，但实际上我们需要开始准备自动化对就业的影响，从2030年开始感受到2030多年来。
Fortunately, at least two models exist—one privately funded and one publicly funded—to help guide our approach in dealing with this.
在麦肯锡播客中，“What Can History Teach Us About Technology and Jobs?”McKinsey全球苏珊隆德的苏珊隆德有两种类似，但不同的模特目前正在瑞典和德国部署，以处理这个问题。
“In Sweden, the worker-security councils are a system in which employers pay a small amount per worker into a private fund so that if the company downsizes and a worker is laid off, that individual goes to the worker-security council and they get a whole suite of services,” Lund said. “And this is all privately run ... It goes beyond simply providing income support to actually helping individuals find their next job.”
Lund noted Germany’s “very successful government-run system that operates in many ways very similarly [to the Swedish worker-security council]. Reforms that were implemented in the early 2000s, the so-called Hartz reforms, have enabled Germany to reduce what was a relatively high unemployment rate, over 11 percent, down to about 3.5 percent today.”
Lund contends that, in both cases, “there’s a lesson that mid-career people can find new occupations and new jobs.” Her one caveat to this is the case of rapid automation adoption. In other words, if jobs are automated more rapidly than McKinsey predicts, “it’s going to take a more comprehensive and organized approach in many countries than we’ve seen so far,” Lund said.
Brookings机构报告还突出了丹麦的“Flexicurity”系统，这些系统将强化支持与“义务有责任”相结合。
Considering the high levels of advanced automation technologies clearly coming our way, it’s past time for us to critically examine how to manage the coming technological transition. Automation and other technological advances that impact jobs can't be avoided. Proposing to do so runs counter to human history and human nature.
Helping people adapt is the only way to avoid—or at least minimize—the negative economic and societal impacts that will affect us all if nothing is done. How we choose to do it is the question.
