How much is a human being worth?
The question may come across as rhetorical at first, but I assure you it isn’t. I’m looking for an answer — or, better yet, a number — to put my finger on here.
We may not think about it very often, but capitalism forces us to quantify human value all the time. It may be crude, and it may be crass, but that doesn’t change the basic reality that we assign numbers to people to establish their worth.
When it comes to corporate America, humans are just another variable in the cost-benefit equation.
Now, I’m not bringing this up to get into a political discussion about wealth distribution or the merits and flaws of our current economic system. I could share my personal opinions on these matters, but that would be totally irrelevant to the intended discussion.
In this forum, I’m concerned only with putting a number on worker value and seeing what that might tell us about the future of employment.
See, when you assign a number to establish a person’s worth, you’re inherently stating what he or she isn’t. If a company pays you $50,000 a year, what they’re really saying is that you’re not worth $51,000. Likewise, they’re saying if they could pay you $49,000 to accomplish the same amount, they would.
This second scenario is really what makes putting a number on human worth so interesting. It raises the question, “At which point does job automation (software and robotics) begin to overtake the human workforce?”
In other words, at which point do humans become monetarily worthless?
Crude Calculations
The most obvious way to figure this out is to look at data on individual incomes.
According to U.S. Census data, the average U.S. individual is worth about $40,500 a year, and half of all people are worth less than $27,000. In other words, most of the population is worth less than a four-door Nissan sedan (annually speaking).
Credit: Townhall Finance, U.S. Census Data
Now, of course humans carry plenty of intrinsic worth outside the workplace. But to corporate America, those things don’t really make much of a difference.
All that really matters is getting work done, and getting it done at the lowest possible rate.
If your employer could save money by replacing you with a machine, he would — that’s just good business. This is the way it’s been since the invention of the printing press, and it’s the way it will continue to be until humans can no longer find suitable employment with anything short of a Ph.D.
Let’s assume, hypothetically, that there is a robot capable of performing work as well as workers at the bottom half of the distribution above — those valued less than $26,989.
These are your fast-food cooks, counter workers, and servers. They’re your cashiers, ticket takers, farm laborers, parking lot attendants, bartenders, meat packers, and so on.
The day our hypothetical robot can be leased at $26,988 is the day this part of America becomes unemployed.
They Took Our Jobs!
Most people aren’t particularly concerned with losing their place in the workforce to a machine anytime soon, but they probably should be. Even with wages as low as they are, machines are approaching cost-effectiveness, rivaling a significant portion of U.S. employees.
Just take the average cost of an industrial robot arm, for example. New robotic arms, complete with a control system, cost from $50,000 to $80,000 and have a lifespan of 12-15 years.
At the most, that’s an annual cost of $6,700 a year for a machine that can work all day, every day, with no need for benefits or insurance.
Of course, robotic arms can only perform repetitive physical tasks, but that doesn’t mean these machines aren’t putting any pressure on job-seekers elsewhere…
By forcing human workers away from physical labor, machines are increasing competition in other fields that require higher levels of education. A robot may not be able to do your job just yet, but it’s certainly adding to the pool of those wishing to take it.
Even if this weren’t the case, it would still be folly to underestimate the fast-paced progression of robotic capability. If we put some trust into prestigious research institutions such as Stanford University, MIT, and Carnegie Mellon, we can expect robots to have “humanlike dexterous manipulation,” or complex hands with independent joints approaching human capability, within just five to 15 years.
Once this can happen for less than $27,000 a year, the bottom half of America is going to drop out and, quite possibly, take a lot more down with them. Yes, jobs will be created in the process — but not even close to the pace at which they’ll be lost.
No one knows exactly when this price point will be hit, but the day is coming, that’s for certain. This is why, after analyzing 702 jobs across various industries, Oxford University found that 47% are currently at risk to automation.
It’s also why Brussels-based think tank Bruegel found 51% of jobs in Germany are subject to automation in the next two decades and why British University Minister David Willets believes robots will “take over middle class professions” almost entirely.
Some analysts go even further. Stuart Elliot of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, has indicated technology has the potential to replace “workers for 80% of current jobs.”
Unfortunately, dialogue around this issue has so far been too scarce. As a nation, we need to begin addressing the effect of automation on employment, and as individuals, we need to begin protecting our wealth.
These things could mean the difference between a utopian future filled with leisure and a dystopian one where humans are deemed utterly worthless.
Turning progress to profits,
Jason Stutman
Check us out on YouTube!
