[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. While automation has long been known to cut labor costs in the United States and displace some workers, new research underscores its pivotal role in widening disparities right now. In the past 40 years, at least half, if not more, of the increasing wage gap among American workers is attributable to automation according to MIT Economist Daron Acemoglu. His research shows this is particularly true for men without college degrees, but if you think of this as just having to do with machines that replace factory workers, it's becoming much more in the 21st century.

The last few years have brought rapid advancements in not just hardware, but software and artificial intelligence that have the potential to displace even more workers and more kinds of workers. We're going to talk about this now and invite stories from your workplace, employees and employers, and we'll touch on some other tech news out today if we have time. The Senate Judiciary Committee came together yesterday in an unusual bipartisan vote to pass a bill that would begin to break up some big tech giants by ensuring that major companies cannot disadvantage competitors.

Microsoft, maybe you heard, made a big acquisition this week raising eyebrows along those lines. In local tech news, Mayor Eric Adams has taken his first paycheck as mayor, as promised, in the form of cryptocurrency. Sort of took it as cryptocurrency, federal labor laws don't really allow for wages to be paid in crypto as of now. He took his paycheck traditionally, but he says he's going to convert it to cryptocurrency. Joining me now for a tech news roundup is Steve Lohr, who has covered technology, business, and economics for the New York Times for more than 20 years, maybe you saw his article Economists Pin More Blame on Tech for Rising Inequality. Steve, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC.

Steve Lohr: Thanks for having me, Brian. Appreciate it.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, help us report the story. Wondering if there are any workers out there whose jobs have been partially or entirely replaced by software or artificial intelligence of any kind? 212-433-WNYC. Maybe you've worked in customer service or as a cashier in the past. Now a lot of big companies have automated voices. The people who call customer service hate those automated voices, but there they are, stores have self-checkout kiosks, or maybe your job opportunities have grown like if you work in the auto industry. I read that more cars has led to a boon in all sorts of other career paths in that field, even as machines do more to put the cars together.

Maybe AI has changed your job for the better. Or do we have employers listening right now grappling with when and how to save money on labor costs by deploying technology instead of people? Tweet @BrianLehrer, or give us a call now at 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. For listener service press 212-433-9692 to get on the air. Steve, as you write in your piece, automation wasn't always seen as a bad thing from a labor standpoint. You write, "Economists point to the post-war years from 1950 to 1980 as a golden age when technology forged ahead, and workers enjoyed rising income." So, how did they coexist?

Steve Lohr: You get shared prosperity when the technology moves ahead, as does training and education. That was the story from the early 1950s to 1980s. After that, the growth in post-secondary education starts to decline in the United States, employers spent less on training. We started to see this divergence, which has only increased.

Brian Lehrer: When and why did the wheels start to fall off the wagon?

Steve Lohr: Again, the technology that came in, on the factory floor it was computerized machinery and robots, and in offices it's specialized software. Those things were the automation technologies and the level of skills that people had couldn't keep up to stay ahead of the new technology and many of these jobs were automated. On the office side, I always think of the movie working girl from the late '80s, which is Melanie Griffith and Harrison Ford. She works in the secretarial pool in the center, and eventually makes her way out to a management job. Those pools that existed in the '80s don't exist anymore. We have 750,000 fewer secretaries in America than we once did because those jobs, we all do the input ourselves now, and so those went away.

On factory floors, we had the automation of computerized machinery and robots that undermine jobs and we had a policy regime that over time has greatly worked to the advantage of the machines and the software and less to the advantage of workers. A simple example is the taxation. The cost for a company to invest in a worker, including income taxes and payroll taxes, is about 25%, but because of a series of tax cuts over time, the tax rate on investing in machinery and software is close to zero. The incentives push you also in the direction of automation.

Brian Lehrer: You write citing one economist in your article that we may be headed for what he calls the Turing trap, which is a reference to mathematician and artificial intelligence pioneer, Alan Turing. Can you explain what that means?

Steve Lohr: Yes. The Turing test has been around for a long time. It's essentially, you create a dialogue system so that it is good enough in its responses to your questions that a human being can't tell whether the answers in the conversation coming from the other side is a human being or a machine. If you can't tell the difference, you've passed the Turing test. That's a metaphor for a technology should do is equal human performance. Therefore, replace it. The people who say we should take a different direction in technology development say what we really should be doing is looking at technologies that enhance human performance, rather than replace people.

The simplest example of good technology is a personal computer, which Steve Jobs always described as a bicycle for the mind. It makes you better, it augments you, it doesn't replace you.

Brian Lehrer: I guess that wouldn't apply to one of the examples that somebody just wrote in on Twitter, says, "Did you see the minor league baseball teams are planning to test robot umpires?"

Steve Lohr: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: "How are you going to argue with a cell phone?"

Steve Lohr: They're doing this a little bit in tennis to now right, on the ball, for line judges and things. No fun. Also then what about close calls at the plate? It's a whole different visual recognition for a robot software to do. Arguing with the umpire's half the fun, right?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, I guess. Not to overemphasize an example from pro sports, but it raises the dilemma, I think, in a clearer way. If a machine with lenses can call balls and strikes more accurately than a human being, and I think that's mostly how it will be deployed, to call the strike zone more consistently and more accurately than human umpires do, that could apply to a lot of other kinds of jobs. Then the question is really pertinent, what if the machines can just do the job better? What's our responsibility as human beings to have the best job done versus keeping other human beings employed?

Steve Lohr: It's a very good question, Brian. From an economic standpoint, you want the human beings to be productively employed, not just give them a job that they do less well than the machines. The way it has been ever since the industrial era began was that the machines took over some jobs but others were created. That humans could do better working with the machines than a machine could do alone. That's still an open question as to whether that's what we're going to see happen.

Brian Lehrer: Stephanie in Brooklyn, you're WNYC with New York Times business and technology writer, Steve Lohr. Hi, Stephanie.

Stephanie: Hello, Brian. I have a comment and a question. The comment is that, your guest may have mentioned this in the written article but just for listeners to be aware also, that one of the reasons that the auto workers did so well in the '40s, '50s, and '60s even though jobs are being automated was because the unions, UAW and other unions, helped make sure that they would get the training and make sure that they got like a decent percent of the profits and so forth. The question is, now that so few places are unionized and that kind of thing, I can picture a dystopian world where there's a handful of billionaires that own all the machinery, and that we all are just this underclass of unemployed people.

Do we need universal basic income or is there some other way to make sure that he who owns the machines does not rule the entire world and the rest of us, if we have a job, that makes sure we get a decent portion of the profits? That's my question.

Brian Lehrer: Stephanie, thank you. That was the Andrew Yang presidential campaign. Automation is taking so many jobs and potential future jobs from human beings that we need universal basic income provided by the government. Right, Steve?

Steve Lohr: Yes. I would suggest that the Yang position is both way too optimistic about technology and what it can do in the near term and too pessimistic about where humans fit in. To address your listener's question, one of the quotes from the MIT economist looking at the technology in this rising wage inequality is that, yes, but it's not an act of God. Technology is a tool and we as a society in terms of corporate behavior policy, and we as a society, decided to use it. When people look at what's going to happen in the future, the pace and growth of artificial intelligence is the X factor, but the economists in particular in this article that I wrote were lobbying for a change in that atmosphere.

Some of that atmosphere is exactly, again, as your caller and your listener said, one of the things that's made easier to automate has been the decline of the power of workers broadly, both unions and beyond, and some of these tax changes I mentioned before. Those are things that public opinion can change, and we've changed the direction of technology in the past. Again, Daron Acemoglu, the MIT economist uses what's happened with renewable resources as an inspiration. This is something that because of incentives, policy, government research, social pressure on corporations to not pollute and contribute to carbon emissions, has steered the development of technology in a different direction.

His argument and some others are that we ought to be able to do a similar thing with the direction of technology and automation and making sure humans are always in the loop and have a say.

Brian Lehrer: Here's another example from another caller in another industry I think. Sarah in Bay Ridge, you're on WNYC. Hi, Sarah.

Sarah: Hi, Brian. I work in the fashion industry. I agree with what everybody's saying, but it's about the creativity I think, and that's what's missing in the automated world when everyone's talking about technology. I work for multiple companies, I won't name them, but in a photo studio we used to have photographers, and models, and hairdressers, and makeup artists, and of course stylists, and digi-techs, and assistants, and now the set is just a stylist and that's it because we shoot on a green screen, and with the green model. It's called Looklet.

It's a great process, but all I have to do is push a button and the model moves and you turn around and I get to scan the barcode and choose the shoes, choose the blouse, and then it's cropped, and it's nose and below. All these major high e-commerce companies are just shooting basic catalog looks. The creativity and the skills that I've learned from the past 20 years on set has gone down and dwindled down through this automation. Though we can shoot 80 pieces of clothing, it really diminishes all the work that I went into school for and all the creativity of the imperfections of the human form.

Steve, is that your name? You mentioned that like its a baseball, the human error of the umpire having a strike, missing the count and everybody in the crowd going, "Ah. Oh, no." That's the beauty of having an umpire, not an automated umpire. The human error or the human, like the model who has a mole, the model who stands a little differently. Do you know what I'm trying to say? I'm sorry.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Sarah, actually, let me ask you a follow-up question. I think they may be a little different if a robotic umpire can just eliminate errors. You're talking about something that's really beautiful in difference, which is different kinds of people and different kinds of visuals. Do your bosses talk about this? Do you bring up this concern? Is it something that they worry about on qualitative level, not just income?

Sarah: QC is very important to style as a quality, absolutely. There's a lot of large major companies like Lord & Taylor Lord closing down. We use that company, I can probably say that because the company did close. Lord & Taylor use Looklet to pretty much run through that product, and to close out that store, or the company, to run through it really quickly. The quality control of that was going really, really fast. Shoot a lot of clothes really fast, and not worry about the quality control. Other companies that use it, and other studios, really go far and beyond, because you can shoot children, you can shoot pregnant people, and you can really do beautiful things.

The company is a very good company, Finish company, and they're wonderful. They really do come out with new models and new poses, but if you scroll through different websites, you will see the same look. It's all nose and below. It's all caught up. If you see somebody's eyes, you can't identify with the clothes better. It's impersonal. My bosses care about the bottom line and the number rather than the quality, but now it's kind of switched. It's all about the stylist. I miss the camaraderie and the skill. There was a passion for what I did, and now it's like I put my headphones on and I just work, work, work by myself.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. What a compelling example. Thank you so much for your call. Steve, we're getting all kinds on the phones that we're not going to have time for. Somebody who works in a restaurant says he's getting reservations now from Google Assistant calling him up, rather than human beings in some cases. We have a retired school teacher calling in who would say over the years, it changed from technology assisting teachers to teachers assisting technology. We have a musician calling in to talk about all the live instrumentalist jobs that are being replaced by all the sounds that can be generated.

We have somebody calling in to say the whole thing is an economic catch-22 because machines can replace workers, but they're not going to buy products. They don't create more jobs in that respect. Let's sum it up like this, or not sum it up, but ask what there is to do about this. You write in your article, "The concerns raised by economists are getting more attention in Washington at a time when the tech giant companies are already being attacked on several fronts." What sorts of proposals are lawmakers putting forward as a way to slow down job displacement from artificial intelligence or other automation?

Steve Lohr: It actually just started last year. There's a House Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth. A guy named Jim Himes, who's a Connecticut Democrat chairs it. It's bipartisan agreement on putting more federal money intelligently into skills and training and upgrading skills programs to help people who have fallen behind to get jobs that enable them to move into the middle class. A lot of this is some functional skills with using digital technology. That's certainly turning around this cycle of less training and less secondary education, it's geared to this, along with technological progress, to equip people more for this new world.

It is one thing that you do get bipartisan, actually, consensus on in Washington and that's they're going to come forward with things. Part of this is, as consumers, if we only purchase what's standard and cheap, that lends itself to the routine work that robots and automated software can do. If, as your caller mentioned, the innovation and the diversity of the fashion industry is something that is valued, we should get more of that. There's a public policy side of this, we vote for the strengthening workers, and there's your behavior as a shopper.

Brian Lehrer: We're just about out of time. I'm going to ask you one question on another thing because I can't resist. Mayor Eric Adams, here in New York, is reportedly going to convert his first paycheck today to cryptocurrency, some in Bitcoin, some on another one called Ethereum. Not as many people have heard of, but as I think the number two most valuable according to reports I've seen. I guess I have two quick questions about this. One is, do you think, as Adams predicts, because I think this is why he's doing it, that there's a big industry in cryptocurrency that will actually produce jobs in New York City if companies choose to locate them here?

Number two, do you see any kind of societal risk from the proliferation of crypto, or people you've talked to as a tech reporter? There's an article in In These Times this week about how crypto has to be a bubble. The bubble is going to burst and it's going to cause all kinds of social disruption.

Steve Lohr: Yes, to answer your first question, Brian. Yes, this is a way mayors around the country see this, as a growth industry and are really trying to track them. Miami's got a huge effort to get people to move there who are in the crypto world. Also our Goldman Sachs and others, the New York financial industry business are developing crypto units and so forth. From an economic development standpoint, yes. From a concern standpoint, and a bubble concern, the wrong word here is currency. Bitcoin is a speculative asset like a hot stock. It's not a medium of payment and a storehouse of value, which is how we think of as currencies as.

Mistaking it for that, I think is a real mistake. Unlike your bank deposits, there's no federal deposit insurance. It's a pretty Wild West out there.

Brian Lehrer: Some people do accept payment for things in crypto, right?

Steve Lohr: I got a bill the other way, either a direct transfer for the bank or they do cryptocurrency. This is from our local accountant. I have reservations, to put it mildly, about this but these things move forward and it's going to be regulated. If it gets big enough, it has to be. There's that saving grace.

Brian Lehrer: We'll do more on crypto from various points of view on the show, over time. We have to leave it there for today with Steve Lohr, New York Times technology and economics reporter. His latest in the Times is called Economists Pin More Blame on Tech for Rising Inequality. Thanks so much for joining us.

Steve Lohr: Thanks for having me, Brian. Appreciate it.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.