When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

LES ECHOS

Don't Fight The Robots: The False Choice Of Worker V. Machine

Mechanization is bound to destroy jobs, which not surprisingly provokes fear. But trying to delay the inevitable only makes matters worse and prepares neither society nor laborer for the future.

Who needs cashiers, really?
Who needs cashiers, really?
Olivier Babeau

PARIS — To comply with the ban on working on Sunday, the Casino superstore in Angers replaced its employees on Sundays with machines, and reduced security staff to outsourced temporary workers. The first Sunday it did that, unions staged vigorous protests that included sporadic violence. It was a perfect metaphor for the antagonistic view of the relationship between workers on the one hand, and technology and consumers on the other. This would-be confrontation must change, and fast.

Many consider, wrongly, that work is a kind of cake to be divvied up. That inevitably generates a zero-sum vision of the need for workers, wherein every new machine means one less position for a person. It overlooks the philosopher Joseph Schumpeter's principle of creative destruction, which insists on new needs and job opportunities emerging as others are met or automated. It is useless to oppose this process. Karl Marx himself once wrote that "technology will always be stronger than legal and political technostructures."

Will anyone miss waiting in line to pay at a supermarket?

No work that could be done entirely and more cheaply by machines is immune; better yet, regulatory and fiscal restrictions inevitably entail mechanization. So there is no credible moratorium on technological progress in the long term. Should we have banned piped water for example, to protect the position of water carriers?

One discerns another misconception in reactions to the un-staffed superstore: the supposed clash of interests between workers and consumers. In focusing on safeguarding job positions, one loses sight of the central element, which is the added value of work that is a direct response to a need. Thinking in terms of saving jobs is to overlook the fact that sometimes, a particular position's added value has disappeared while new needs are emerging elsewhere.

Many monopoly actors, like taxis once did, wound up paying the price of a blinkered view that ultimately nurtures competitors. Technological innovations improve quality of service (will anyone miss waiting in line to pay at a supermarket?) and help guide staff toward tasks with greater added value, like advising customers.

La Roseraie Casino superstore in Angers — Photo: Google Street View

In his 1931 essay Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, John Maynard Keynes elaborated his idea of "technological unemployment" as a new ailment of developed societies, caused by a discrepancy between technological progress and workers' skills. The solution is well-known: anticipating future needs in skills and training. Unions and state officials very often react assuming workers are passive beings to whom one promises stability and protection. We should no longer protect, but arm them.

It is cowardly and irresponsible to keep dangling the prospects of safeguarding threatened jobs, which is what politicians often do trying to "attend to" workers' fears and concerns. As for employers, they are not so much guilty of introducing technologies as they are of not helping their workers anticipate new developments.

Should we have banned piped water to protect water carriers?

One trade union leader told an interviewer she was concerned machines would be used on other days too. Well, that is exactly what is going to happen and all retailing may one day look like the Amazon Go store in New York, with no cashiers in sight. And that is great news. Another striking picture recently circulating on social networks was of a robot masterfully cleaning New York's public toilets. It is difficult to see how one could yearn for such jobs, when their disappearance will mean workers are assigned to other tasks.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Utter Pessimism, What Israelis And Palestinians Share In Common

Right now, according to a joint survey of Israelis and Palestinians, hopes for a peaceful solution of coexistence simply don't exist. The recent spate of violence is confirmation of the deepest kind of pessimism on both sides for any solution other than domination of the other.

An old Palestinian protester waves Palestinian flag while he confronts the Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the village of Beit Dajan near the West Bank city of Nablus.

A Palestinian protester confronts Israeli soldiers during the demonstration against Israeli settlements in the West Bank village of Beit Dajan on Jan. 6.

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — Just before the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, a survey of public opinion among the two peoples provided a key to understanding the current situation unfolding before our eyes.

It was a joint study, entitled "Palestinian-Israeli Pulse", carried out by two research centers, one Israeli, the other Palestinian, which for years have been regularly asking the same questions to both sides.

The result is disastrous: not only is the support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine side by side — at its lowest point in two decades, but there is now a significant share of opinion on both sides that favors a "non-democratic" solution, i.e., a single state controlled by either the Israelis or Palestinians.

This captures the absolute sense of pessimism commonly felt regarding the chances of the two-state option ever being realized, which currently appears to be our grim reality today. But the results are also an expression of the growing acceptance on both sides that it is inconceivable for either state to live without dominating the other — and therefore impossible to live in peace.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest