Attempting to prevent job losses with bureaucracy is an unviable strategy. Let’s not frame this problem in the typical Latin American democratic discussion about right-wing and left-wing governments. It’s not a matter of one government stopping it and another allowing it when it takes power. Stopping technological adoption with legal hurdles also means missing out on the positive effects it brings; that’s why we should not worry but take action.
While the most advanced countries in the world dedicated themselves at some point to solving their structural problems, which no one said is easy or quick, Argentina is marked by a history of pushing problems forward. No one wants to pay the broken plates, yet we constantly see how society in general becomes poorer, and how in times of economic rise, counter-cyclical measures are not adopted to prevent future setbacks. I fear we will make the same mistake again. As Richard Koch (1997) says in his book about the famous 80/20 rule[176], “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on unreasonable men.”
Let’s suppose the other countries in the international system, or at least those we directly compete with, embrace the coming technology. They will lower their costs, increase their production, and international markets will likely lean towards buying their products or services because of that famous common factor that controls everything in today’s society: prices. Or as it has been customary to say since 1992 when James Carville, a strategist for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, immortalized the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid.”
This will put us at a great crossroads because it seems that if we choose to preserve existing jobs, we will lose competitiveness, which will cause companies to go bankrupt or move to other countries, thus eliminating the jobs we initially tried to protect. On the contrary, if we embrace this technology, we will also see displaced workers, to a lesser extent, although the country will be able to participate in the international market and thus generate foreign currency. To the lovers of the communist legacy, I would like to ask: how do you start a workers’ revolution if we don’t have a working class in the first place? After all, nothing is built forever, not even social systems. Soon the banner of “exploitation” will be replaced, as Harari said[177], by the banner of “irrelevance,” which I think is much worse because of what it means. In the first case, the human worker had value, according to Marxism in an exploited way, while according to liberalism it was through an exchange of services. However, in the second case, of irrelevance, the worker loses that title or aptitude because they are no longer a necessary part of the value chain. The only way to change this is with a systemic change. I can’t forget to include the prophetic phrase of Warren Bennis[178], who once said:
The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to prevent the man from touching the equipment.
Despite the drop in the cost of goods and services, the global economy could shrink without the existence of capable and willing consumers to buy what the market produces. Who are we going to sell products to if unemployment skyrockets? What will be the effect if the purchasing power of those who still have jobs is reduced? The risk of falling into a downward spiral, where a few possess high purchasing power, is not only a future threat but something we are already seeing as inequality within countries increases. Several economists from the International Monetary Fund argue in a paper published by the organization that automation is evidently good for economic growth but very bad for equity among people[179].
We need pragmatic solutions, not more speculative theories about how things work. This is the century of science and data. Neither is history linear, nor can we confuse a photo with the outcome of a movie. The only certainty we have is that humans need and will need food on our tables, but that alone is not enough.
If we push the problem forward, I have no doubt that the day we finally decide to address it will be too late and the material and human costs of this event will be critical. If we prepare in time and embrace the change, which will come whether we like it or not, we will undoubtedly be better positioned against the rest of the world when it’s time to face it. But beware! This will not happen overnight, and that means it won’t happen on an exact date or year; it is a process and that takes time, precisely what we need.
Neither did the coronavirus reach all countries on the same day, nor did all countries react the same way to the pandemic, so today we can see different results around the world. In this sense, the AI revolution will be similar. It won’t hit everyone equally. Some countries will be able to handle it better, and while some industries will fall, others will see exorbitant gains. Undoubtedly, I would like those companies to be Argentine and generate a lot of demand for skilled labor here at home, although due to the nature of globalization and digitalization, we take for granted that not all jobs will be created within our borders, and that’s perfectly fine because it’s what gives projects scalability while helping to seek new visions and hire the best human resources regardless of their physical location. Even so, none of this will happen here if, as a country, we do not start preparing immediately. That means greater access to quality public education and incentives for those who create private jobs. Incentives, not hurdles. Considering the results of the PISA assessments, which in Argentina cast doubt on the level of education achieved by our young people in their primary and secondary education, coupled with the levels of child malnutrition that hinder the full development of cognitive abilities in new generations, we can see that the starting point is not ideal. Moreover, the problem does not end there, because due to the constant and high national inflation rate that undermines the purchasing and saving power of Argentine workers, the country has begun to suffer an unprecedented brain drain, although this is not a unique phenomenon locally. The brain drain is real, and while its causes are multiple, we cannot deny the importance of the economic factor in the equation. This is important for two reasons. First, the economic factor is not just the salary received by the worker, but there are at least two more facets as pointed out by Najla Bouden in her presentation on the future of work at the 2022 annual meeting in Davos. First, society invested resources in training that professional. Second, their departure also harms the local economy by depriving local small and medium-sized enterprises, even large conglomerates, of highly skilled local labor. That said, free mobility is a right of all people, and they will surely go where they find the best future, so let’s not be surprised when local unicorns stop emerging, and we mostly consume foreign services.
However, the starting point does not scare me. What can be scary are the diagnoses and priorities of the rulers. If the diagnosis is wrong, no prescription will work. A 2017 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicates that 19% of Argentines between the ages of 25 and 34 have a university degree[180]. We have free public university education, but we are below most countries in the region in terms of the number of young graduates. These numbers are not surprising when we consider the facts pointed out in the previous paragraph regarding the present of our country. However, I think this should be one of the fundamental pillars for the country’s development, regardless of who governs; without neglecting, of course, the informal education systems, which are currently booming and yielding promising results that make many doubt the need to attend a university. I think it is essential to embrace all the tools we have at our disposal, public, private, formal, and informal. After all, it is not only the duty of each generation to build the foundations for the next to have a better future, but also by achieving that, we ensure that this generation will take better care of us tomorrow when we are older. Today, the market disrupts careers quickly, and while the formal system takes its time to analyze, approve, and implement changes, private actors who understand change first, drive it.
[176] Koch, R. (1999). The 80/20 Principle: The Secret to Achieving More with Less.
[177] Harari, Y. N. (2017). The rise of the useless class. TED.com. Viewed on May 15, 2021, at https://ideas.ted.com/the-rise-of-the-useless-class.
[178] Bennis, Warren G. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
[179] Berg, A., Buffie, E., & Zanna, L. (2018). Should we fear the robot revolution? (the correct answer is Yes). International Monetary Fund. Viewed on June 16, 2021, at https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/05/21/Should-We-Fear-the-Robot-Revolution-The-Correct-Answer-is-Yes-44923.
[180] Universidad de Buenos Aires. UBA. (2017). Viewed on May 16, 2021, at https://www.uba.ar/noticiasuba/nota.php?id=18450.