Introduction

Technological change, we might say, produces a progress paradox, simultaneously boosting economic output while dramatically altering our job market. Amid his 1960 presidential campaign, Senator John F. Kennedy suggested as much speaking before a Grand Rapids, Michigan, convention hosted by the AFL-CIO:

If automation is to be the key to a brighter future rather than the forerunner of economic distress — then labor and management and government must work together to ease the inevitable dislocations and hardships which this new industrial revolution will bring.

John F. Kennedy

If we surf across recent history, we will encounter many quotes echoing Kennedy, albeit few so eloquent. How should government respond when innovation leads machines to replace workers?
Congress must command a greater role responding to automation. Hereafter, I articulate how a broad-based labor coalition can pressure elected officials to act. Our goal is specific, attainable, and time-bound: to enact federal legislation that would provide a modest subsidy to individuals displaced due to technologically-motivated staff downsizing. Said money could either go towards remote job training or affording broadband internet service. Representative Debbie Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, drafted legislation around these principles earlier this year. Introduced as HR 1534 in February 2017, the 21st Century Worker Opportunity Act remains landlocked between two committees: No fellow House members have co-sponsored her legislation. Maybe it is overly simplistic. But we need to start somewhere. Within 1 year of launching my tentatively named Automation Action Plan, I expect to either have HR 1534 called up for vote, or connect constituent groups with public officials to together brainstorm longer-lasting solutions.

Background

Our economy is changing. It is becoming algorithmic and automated. Just consider: self-driving freight vehicles are zooming down highways, families of robots managing warehouse inventory, and virtual assistants responding to our beck and call. Whole industries are getting digitized. In 2004, Blockbuster supported 84 thousand decent-paying positions and made 6 billion dollars in revenue. Last year, Netflix made 9 billion dollars in revenue with only 4,500 employees on payroll. After decades of merely assisting work, enhancing productivity, computers today possess the capacity to supplant human labor. Why are corporations caving so easily? Running businesses in America costs way too much to sustain full-time employees when equally efficient computer solutions exist.

The McKinsey Global Institute, a private-sector think tank, estimates in a report published two weeks ago that up to 800 million jobs worldwide and 54 million jobs domestically could get automated by 2030. We are currently unprepared to handle this economic reality. Innovation never waits. So legislators cannot afford to either. McKinsey figures as many as 375 million workers may need to switch occupational categories. The stakes are higher than ever. Previous automated ages were considerably narrow in impact. Plenty of economists and sociologists have fascinated themselves with this question. In fact, John Maynard Keynes coined technological unemployment. So what is different this time?

Back when Kennedy talked about automation, he was referring to advances in mechanical, chemical, and aerospace engineering, not information technology (Ford, 2015, p. 51). Computers can process information. And they are increasingly able to do so quicker than we anticipate. Frank Levy and Richard Murnane forecasted less than fifteen years ago that tasks involving pattern recognition would be protected against automation, as rules-based activities, those involving step-by-step procedures, fall under computers’ purview (2004, p. 16). However, machine learning processes have granted computers the ability to detect trends and make predictions. Each morning, Google alerts me about my commute and recommends news articles for me to read. Text recognition and natural language understanding have progressed such that when I receive an email, Google suggests a canned reply.

Oxford professors Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne designed a methodology to quantify the impact of computerization on United States labor. Based upon a field of 702 occupations, they determined 47 percent, particularly construction, service and sales jobs, are at high risk of getting automated (2017, p. 38). Meanwhile, engineering and the natural science pose lower probabilities. Notably, certain professions may become only partially automated. Frey and Osborne suggest that, while paralegal duties have a high likelihood of computerization, full attorney services becoming routine computer work any time soon bares low probability (p. 41).

To what extent is government currently intervening to limit these eventualities, and how does US action compare internationally? It turns out, federal adjustment efforts do not aid workers impacted by robotics, automation, or disruptive digital platforms (Muro & Parilla, 2017). Even what Washington does contribute to aiding workers displaced in manufacturing and factory settings is abysmal. Based on OECD data, the United States spends merely .1 percent of our gross domestic product on job activation and readjustment programs. Meanwhile, France invests ten times as much. Besides Mexico, no comparably industrial country spends less than us.

Alongside unprecedented technological transformations, other economic developments have underpinned expanding income inequality and sporadic employment growth. Complementary to outsourcing, offshoring, and importing trends,  “the automation of routine work” in recent years has contributed to “contracting opportunities in middle-wage, middle-skill, white-collar and blue-collar jobs” (Autor, 2010, p. 1). Job polarization, as David Autor calls it, has been responsible for static earnings and low labor force participation among workers without a postsecondary degree.

My strategic plan

Having adequately contextualized our political endeavor, let us shift gears to discussing our campaign in finer detail. I will be modeling my campaign upon the Midwest Academy handbook, Organizing for Social Change. If I may begin on a super abstract level, a strategy is simply how we convert time, resources, and ideas into a targeted action plan. So first off, why organize about automation at this particular cultural moment? A simple response for you: We cannot afford to wait any longer. Our future is staring back at us, demanding we do something. Acemoglu and Restrepo estimate that robots have already overtaken 670 thousand jobs (2016, p. 36). And between 2015 and 2025, they expect wage growth to shrink up to 2.6 percent as a direct result of automation (p. 37).

Additionally, I’d argue that the administration of Donald J. Trump provides a perfect opportunity to pitch readjustment efforts on Capitol Hill. Republicans in Congress have been desperate for a legislative victory. After crafting healthcare and tax reform dangerously far outside regular order, I expect a moderate coalition of GOP Senators would be on board to support a bipartisan effort on automation adjustment assistance. Having already explained my long-term objective, let me briefly overview some intermediates ones.

Goals

My long-term objective is to pass a bill that would extend relief to workers detrimentally affected by automation. As I mentioned earlier, Representative Dingell has introduced legislation that would provide dislocated works a coupon to obtain free, online job training in an industry considered outside the scope of computerization.

Intermediate goals include getting a senator to introduce a corresponding Senate version of HR 1534; building a union-like constituent network of 1 thousand persons who automation harmed within 2 months of campaign launch; creating a viral social media documentary that persuasively depicts the challenges that losing brought forth when robots replace you; and partnering our coalition with research organizations like McKinsey and Brookings actively studying the industries most prone to future tech-related job loss.

Resources

After establishing expectations, I would begin building a team of driven, like-minded, policy professionals interested in digital communications campaign work. Tapping into alumni networks through GW might be where to start. Ultimately, determining which node within nearby social networks is most central to this issue must precede any targeting activities (Christakis & Fowler, 2009). Marshall Ganz, in his popular account of the California farm labor movement, repeatedly stresses that creating a collaborative team culture in which “regular, open, and authoritative deliberations” occur amplifies your strategic capacity (2009, p. 17). He also recommends reconfiguring leadership structures to reflect environmental changes (p. 19). In my case, that implies bringing on folks of different ideological orientations so long as they remain simpatico and in agreement concerning our long-term objective. Another necessary organizational consideration, dull as it may be, is cost. Establishing a budget early on ensures I can afford and endure, both emotionally and financially, the sacrifices that multi-year campaigns demand of us.

Constituents, allies, and opponents

First and foremost, who are we trying to help? As I envision them now, our constituents cut across party lines. I mentioned before David Autor, who uncovered that middle-class, moderately-skilled workers have been most hurt by contemporary technological change. Truck drivers mark one group I explicitly expect to be aiding. 4.1 million people employed in transportation, as truckers, cabbies, bus drivers, and delivery persons, make $42,500 on average each year, according to an article published in September 2016 by the Los Angeles Times. That firmly places them within the middle class. We already talked about self-driving vehicles. But it begs repetition. 1.7 million of these Americans will soon be out of a career, searching for something new (Kitroeff, 2016). Maybe, just maybe my campaign could give them hope, keep them optimistic. If I sat across from them, I would say, we will not give up on you. Last year, Representative Dingell sponsored legislation enabling the expansion of automated vehicles by Tesla, Uber, and others. Her past positioning does not concern me. Rather, it inclines me to think that she too is motivated on this issue, that she genuinely understands the stakes of innovation and refuses to back down from them.

Next, who do we have on our side already confronting this issue? I should say that a reason I am strategizing a campaign about automation is that I feel it lacks understanding. Our society has not fully appreciated its impact. Yet organized labor has. The AFL-CIO and United Auto Workers, while struggling mightily to retain union members, are still outstanding advocates for consumer protection and job security. In a sense, the coalition I intend to build will reflect the values of union membership, which has declined to a stunning degree since the early eighties. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows union membership plunging from 20.1 percent in 1983 to 10.7 percent in 2016. If anything, this leads me to think those 1 in 10 persons continuing to belong would appreciate and want to assist our campaign.

Finally, which groups benefit from our status quo, uncontrolled automation arrangement? Big tech does. But I have two points to share regarding why they would not oppose our effort. First, maybe they are too big to even notice us. It would quite a bit of exposure before they get track of our little lobbying effort. And second, nothing about HR 1534 prevents Google, Apple, or any digital age titan from further investing in machine learning and advanced IT. Perhaps a better answer is small government conservatives, libertarians disinterested in funding another $5 billion social program. Now I would take issue with calling job training and broadband expansion subsidies “welfare,” but I expect some might toss that term around. Ultimately, they would never be on board anyway. So no harm in rustling their feathers.

Targets

We will structure our Automation Action Plan into three chapters. First, entails contacting Representative Dingell to express our interest in helping her pass the 21st Century Worker Opportunity Act. One possible pitfall: for some odd reason, I expect they might want to place HR 1534 on hold until Democratic leadership secures DACA protections and additional priorities. Regardless, after establishing a rapport with whoever handles communications and technology policy, a member of our mobilization and persuasion teams will schedule a strategy session.

The second chapter, after conveying to Dingell our intermediate goals, and modifying them as necessary, involves establishing a cooperative relationship with national labor groups. If at all possible, tapping into union databases would make our third targeting effort worlds easier. Probably some legal rationale for that being impossible, unfortunately. Also during our middle stage, we would be reaching out to think tanks actively studying the multidimensional effects of automation, specifically the McKinsey Global Institute and Brookings Institution. Also at this point, I plan on contacting the Washington office of Representative Ron Kind, whose legislation, HR 4480, would provide for a National Academics study on the future of work.

Lastly, we will leverage social networks as best we can in an ambitious coalition-building effort. Here is where having pre-allocated money for outreach comes in handy. Facebook allows page administrators to target users with particular occupations based upon a lookalike sample. If somehow, miraculously, we acquire contact information of union members who have lost work to automation, Facebook can magically cross-reference email addresses and other biographical information to track down your constituents’ profiles. Managing a consistent, well-refined paid media strategy will serve a critical targeting function.

Tactics

Where do mobilization and persuasion factor into my campaign tactics? Prior to answering, let me clarify and connect them. I see persuasion as a prerequisite for mobilization. If we have not yet convinced a constituent, or an ally, that our intentions and merits are well-placed, then getting them to advocate on our behalf is impractical. Persuasion requires our target to be of a different mindset than us. So, that in mind, I would say persuasion plays the most profound role later on, when we are reaching out to members of Congress to cosponsor the bill, and when we engage with potential allies and constituents for the first time. Upon securing these partnerships, as I have taken to calling them, that is when we implement our mobilization methods. The very essence of democracy is accountability between public officials and citizens. After persuading dislocated workers to join our campaign, we direct them to contact their representatives and senators asking them to explain their stories and ask them for to please consider co-sponsoring HR 1534 and the respective Senate version.

Media strategy

One of the long-term consequences of the 2016 election is the media reconsidering its role in covering rural America. Well, in rural America, manufacturing jobs are getting automated. So a core component of our media strategy should entail getting outlets, both liberal and conservative, to speak with those recently displaced. The media has an agenda-setting function. In this case, if we can get the issue of automation covered, then maybe we can have an additional source of pressure on lawmakers to engage this issue.

Timeline

Naivety helps no one. So let me unequivocally admit that this is a lot to take on. But much can be done in a year and much can be done with a determined team committed to a common mission. The efficacy of our goals is irrefutable. And the theory undergirding our strategy is well justified. All of these pieces add up. 1 year it is.

Final thoughts

Even though plenty of Americans care deeply about this looming threat of job displacement, Congress has not acted and does not appear particularly enthused about doing so. Well, they should be. We will make them notice. Our current politics is transfixed by issues of symbolism rather than substance. If I am a former factory worker, handling a routine assembly task, and my job gets replaced by a machine, I would want my government to assist me with training for new employment. I would want my government to not leave me behind as my former boss had done.

Remaining grounded when we discuss automation, avoiding turning into a society of Chicken Littles, is important to consider. But equally vital is giving appropriate consideration to the risks and rewards of innovation. We should not be afraid of innovation; we should welcome it. But we must prepare ourselves as a country to handle the inevitable fallout that it brings with it.