Los Angles Times: Over 50% of CA Jobs at Risk by Automation by 2035
Millions of Californians’
jobs could be affected by automation — a scenario the next governor has to
address
By MELANIE MASON
Graphics by ELLIS SIMANI
and PRIYA KRISHNAKUMAR
OCT. 14, 2018, 12:05 A.M.
The decisions made by the
state’s next governor will affect generations to come. Read what Californians
think should take priority and tell us what you think here.
Looking at a map of
California on a projector screen, Johannes Moenius, an economics professor at
the University of Redlands, hovered his mouse over the Inland Empire, which
glowed with a splotch of red pixels.
The colored dots signified
how susceptible an area would be to job losses caused by automation. And the
alarm-bell red that covered Riverside, San Bernardino and Ontario signaled high
risk — roughly 63% of tasks performed by workers in the area could be automated
in the future.
To Moenius, the rise of
robots in warehouses, factories and fast-food restaurants presents danger for
places like the Inland Empire, where most residents work in logistics and the
service industry and just 21% of adults have a four-year degree. As technology
transforms the nature of work in California, how do people most at risk find
their way to new jobs?
“We’re facing a major
challenge,” Moenius said. “If we don’t do anything, then it will turn into an
apocalypse.”
Whether confronting an
increasingly automated labor market or grappling with how the gig economy is
reshaping the relationship between companies and their workers, California’s
next governor will have to address the changing nature of work.
That could mean rethinking
how to educate Californians, remaking labor laws or considering major social
safety net proposals such as a universal basic income. State government might
not be able to control change sweeping the workplace, but it will have to deal
with the fallout.
Which jobs are most
susceptible to automation?
According to a study done
by the Institute of Spatial Economic Analysis, the jobs most susceptible to
automation across the state include bookkeepers, accountants and cashiers. More
specialized jobs, such as doctors, therapists and social workers are less
susceptible.
Largest metropolitan areas
in California
In the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine area, approximately 59% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
In the Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Glendale area, approximately 58% of jobs are at risk of automation by
2035.
In the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area, approximately 63% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
In the San Diego-Carlsbad area, approximately 57% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
In the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura area, approximately 60% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
In the Fresno area,
approximately 62% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
In the Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley area, approximately 55% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
In the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade area, approximately 57% of jobs are at
risk of automation by 2035.
In the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco area,
approximately 51% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
In the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara area, approximately 49% of jobs are
at risk of automation by 2035.
Most at-risk jobs
·
Bookkeeping,
accounting and auditing clerks
·
Cashiers
·
Secretaries and
administrative assistants
·
Office clerks,
general
·
Accountants and
auditors
Least at-risk jobs
·
Lodging managers
·
Psychologists,
all other
·
Dietitians and
nutritionists
·
Sales engineers
·
First-line
supervisors of police and detectives
Note: Secretary and
administrative assistant category does not include legal, medical and executive
secretaries.
Sources: Institute for
Spatial Economic Analysis (ISEA), Frey and Osborne (2017), Bureau of Labor
Statistics
The coming years “will
make or break California,” said Eloy Ortiz Oakley, chancellor of the state’s
community college system.
“If we don’t find a way to
provide the skills and education and training necessary for the majority of
Californians,” he said, “there’s going to be a lot more have-nots than we have
today.”
A murky future
California’s economy is
booming. Its 4.2% unemployment rate is a record low. But experts warn the
state’s labor market is particularly vulnerable to disruption from widespread
automation.
“We are seeing a pretty
high percentage of our workforce in relatively low-paying, low-skilled jobs,”
said Somjita Mitra, director of the Institute of Applied Economics at the Los
Angeles County Economic Development Corp.
In the post-Great
Recession landscape, the prospect of getting a well-paying job with just a high
school degree is dim.
“The challenge in the
economy right now is that the kind of jobs that are being created are either at
the lowest wages or the very highest wages,” Oakley said.
The rise of automation has
sparked considerable angst among American workers. A 2017 Pew poll found that
72% of adults said they were worried about a future where robots and computers
can perform human jobs.
Americans unlikely to
think their own job is at risk of automation
But there’s no consensus
on what the future will look like. One 2013 study, which Moenius used to build
his analysis, estimated that 47% of American jobs were at risk of being
automated. A 2016 paper pegged that figure at a much lower 9%.
A study in 2017 posited
that between 23% and 44% of work hours in the United States will be automated
by 2030 — particularly in jobs with a high degree of repetition such as
machinists, office support and retail sales. But that study also said jobs
would be added in the future, especially among care providers such as surgeons
and nurses, and construction workers.
Artificial intelligence —
computers performing tasks typically done by humans — takes many forms.
Computer vision, which allows machines to glean information from what they see,
can be used in agriculture to give crops water and pesticides based on a
plant’s needs.
Virtual assistants such as
Siri or Alexa are being used in hotels, standing in for concierges or front
desk assistants. Self-driving vehicles could upend the country’s transportation
and logistics sectors, but it’s not clear how quickly those cars and trucks
will be widely deployed.
“Depending on who you talk
to, that’s a couple of years away or 30 years away,” said Stephen Baiter,
executive director of the Oakland Workforce Development Board.
It’s one thing for a
technological breakthrough to be invented, and it’s another to see businesses
adopt that technology on a large scale. Experts predict the impact on jobs will
not be a sudden thunderclap — more like a rolling wave.
The level of upheaval
could vary by region. Moenius’ research found the Bay Area — home to Silicon
Valley and highly educated workers — faces relatively low risk of job loss. The
threat is higher in Fresno and Orange County.
But the swath most
susceptible to automation in California spans Riverside, San Bernardino and
Ontario. According to Moenius, it is the fourth most vulnerable metropolitan
area in the nation, just behind other service-industry-heavy cities such as Las
Vegas.
By industry, for industry
During World War II, the
Inland Empire city of Fontana was home to Kaiser Steel, the Pacific Coast’s
first steel mill, and was a crucial cog in the state’s vast shipbuilding
industry.
But the steel jobs had
withered by the 1980s — Fontana, like the rest of the region, became a bedroom
community outside of Los Angeles. It clawed its way back from the Great
Recession due in large part to warehouse and logistic jobs, and the service
industry.
Now, on the campus of
California Steel Industries Inc., the successor to Kaiser Steel, the Inland
Empire is trying to reinvent itself again.
The Chaffey College
Industrial Technical Learning Center, or InTech, is touted as the first
public-private partnership in the state community college system. Originally
envisioned as a place where companies could train their workers for more
advanced jobs, the program now primarily serves participants who are unemployed
or underemployed in other fields.
Training programs range
from basic construction to more advanced skills like computer numerical
control, which enables automated operation of machines. The center is run by
the local community college, but participants don’t earn college credits.
Instead, they receive certifications that are offered based on input from local
industry partners.
“Everything we do is
designed by industry, for industry,” said Sandra Sisco, the center’s director.
For employers who need
workers trained in HVAC repair, InTech teaches that. For companies that need
employees skilled in additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, InTech teaches
that too.
Joanna Farias, 23,
attended InTech two years ago for an electrical boot-camp class. Now, in
addition to her aerospace engineering studies at Cal Poly Pomona and her
internship at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, she’s returned to teach 2-D and
3-D design. And she won’t rule out returning as a student to pick up a new
skill.
“You have to keep coming
back to centers like these to get training and get updated,” she said.
Training centers and
community colleges are likely to be the front-line defense against a changing
labor landscape.
Since 2014, the community
college system has received more than $240 million per year for career and
technical education to prepare students for jobs. Last year saw the creation of
an online-only community college, geared toward working adults who want to learn
new skills.
The proposal received
pushback from educators at traditional schools.
“Generally speaking, our
academic institutions feel reluctant to place a high value on employability.
Traditionally, our attitude has been: We prepare students to be better
citizens, deeper thinkers,” said Oakley, the community college chancellor.
“That’s all very true,” he
added. “But we have also become a proxy for employability so we have to realize
much more acutely the importance of job preparation in our curriculum.”
Much of the attention has
centered on a gulf in the labor market. Companies continue to seek workers with
college degrees. But in California, 8 million workers between the ages of 24
and 62 ended their studies in high school. To close that gap, some advocate
more emphasis on certificates and other types of credentials that show off a
worker’s specific skills.
“We should focus on what
an employee can do, not just their background or pedigree or educational
attainment,” said David Marsh, who manages the Rework America Task Force at the
Markle Foundation.
Others fear that
deemphasizing degrees could exacerbate inequality.
“You end up stratifying
your workforce,” said Lande Ajose, executive director of California Competes, a
higher-education advocacy group. “You end up with people who have wealth or
privilege who continue to get four-year degrees, and everyone else ends up with
some kind of degree that is less than that.”
What do you do with that existing workforce where the
occupations that are in demand are changing all around them?
— Kish Rajan, former leader of the Governor’s Office
of Business and Economic Development.
Education is usually seen
as a young person’s issue. But in a recent facilities maintenance class at
InTech, the students ranged from early 20s to mid-50s, underscoring how
mid-career workers also need places to learn.
“It’s a really vexing
problem — what do you do with that existing workforce where the occupations
that are in demand are changing all around them?” said Kish Rajan, former leader
of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. “They’re going
to need new training, new skill-set development to be competitive.”
Chris McGarry, chief
administrative officer of the Save Mart grocery company, said his business has
never seen technology as a means to “strip out labor.”
But he does envision
redeploying those who work at cash registers and in stockrooms, where
technology can help trim costs, to positions that interact with customers,
which he sees as a necessity to compete with e-retailers like Amazon.
For the United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, which represents grocery clerks, that means figuring
out a pathway to move cashiers to other parts of the store, such as the butcher
counter and prepared food section. The union is looking to apprenticeships,
which have long been favored by construction and firefighters unions, as a
training pipeline; a new law will expand apprenticeship to nontraditional
fields such as healthcare, retail and cannabis.
California has had some
success in creating new work opportunities through its Employment Training
Panel, which gives companies funding to train workers in more advanced skills.
Businesses only get paid if workers are employed for at least three months
after training, among other performance requirements. The program, which
awarded some $100 million in contracts this year, is funded through a special
tax on employers that’s remained at the same rate since 1983.
“We have more demand than
we have funding,” said Stewart Knox, the panel’s executive director.
There’s no shortage of
policy proposals to promote lifelong learning. Some suggest a state tax credit
for companies that invest in worker training. Others would lift the age limit
on CalGrants, the state’s financial aid program, so adults older than 27 can
qualify for assistance.
“What’s keeping somebody
from [going back to school]? Perhaps it’s child care. What about
infrastructure, like high-speed internet at the house?” Mitra asked. “What are
the ancillary support services we can provide to our residents and our
workforce?”
‘What can we do to restore the balance of power?’
The future of work is not
just a matter for the classroom. The next governor will inherit a debate
playing out in courtrooms and legislative chambers: How do we define the
relationship between employers and workers?
The California Supreme
Court sent businesses into a frenzy earlier this year when it handed down a
decision in a class action against Dynamex, a courier service, which made it
harder for companies to classify their workers as independent contractors
instead of employees.
The fight over worker classification
isn’t new. Companies have increasingly relied on independent contractors in
nearly every job sector — in trucking, beauty salons and medical practices, to
name a few. The move represents major savings for employers because independent
contractors are not entitled to minimum wage, overtime or employer-provided
benefits. A 2017 study found that around 8.5% of California workers were
employed as an independent contractor for their main job.
Even though the number of
Californians working full time for on-demand platforms such as Uber or
TaskRabbit is exceedingly small — the UC Berkeley study estimated they comprise
just 0.5% of the workforce overall — the gig economy’s high-profile emergence
has inarguably shaped the debate.
Business groups sought to
block the ruling and appealed unsuccessfully to the Legislature in the summer
to help blunt the court’s action. Now, they say employers are being battered by
lawsuits or threats of litigation. A study commissioned by the California
Chamber of Commerce said the cost to employers of classifying a worker as an
employee instead of a contractor will go up as much as 44%.
“There’s uncertainty as to
who this applies to,” said Jennifer Barrera, a lobbyist with the chamber.
“There’s overall concern and confusion out there as a result of this decision.”
Businesses are certain to turn
to the next governor to buffer the impacts of the decision, either through
exempting certain industries or reviving a dormant state commission to regulate
wages, hours and working conditions.
Gig-economy workers in
California are more likely to experience wage theft, discrimination and other
negative work experiences
Percentage who say that
they or someone in their household have experienced the following in the last
year:
Labor unions will seek to
keep the court ruling intact: More people classified as employees means more
opportunities for unions to organize. But advocates also say they’re fighting
against an erosion in the social safety net spurred by the rise of contractors.
With fewer employees, companies have fewer obligations to pay into unemployment
insurance or contribute to Social Security and Medicare taxes.
“There’s a massive amount
of investment in the social infrastructure that is lost on the independent
contractor side,” said Derecka Mehrens, executive director of Working
Partnerships USA, a labor-affiliated advocacy group.
The anxiety over
automation colors this debate, even if it is not explicitly connected to worker
classification.
“All the [research] work
we’ve done on automation just points to further erosion in job quality and
potentially more independent contractor jobs,” said Doug Bloch, political
director of the Teamsters Joint Council in northern and central California.
Both issues at their core
are about the role of workers, Bloch said: “What can the next governor do to
promote that [role] so workers have more power?”
‘Human beings need work’
The prospect of radical
changes to work — a new robot-driven industrial revolution — has led to equally
sweeping solutions being bandied about. Among the boldest is universal basic
income.
The concept, a fixed
income for every adult with no strings attached, has been pitched as an answer
to an automated future. Stockton’s millennial mayor, Michael Tubbs, earned a
flurry of headlines this year when he planned a pilot program to give $500 a
month to a select group of residents.
The proposal has been
especially embraced in Silicon Valley tech circles, reflecting uneasiness over how
their innovations may affect workers.
“There’s a surprising
amount of circumspection, at the very least,” said Brian Brennan, senior vice
president with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
The proposal inspires
fierce critiques over its anticipated costs and manages to unite frequent foes
in opposition.
What we need is a just vision … not a bunch of these
techno-narcissists lecturing us about how society is supposed to be
constructed.
— Barry Broad, who lobbies for a number of labor
unions.
“We could not be in more
opposition,” said Rob Lapsley, who heads the California Business Roundtable. He
touted policies such as tax credits for the working poor, “rather than
diversions like universal basic income that remove the personal value and
financial incentive for work.”
Barry Broad, who lobbies
for a number of labor unions, is similarly dismissive.
“In the labor movement, we
believe very fundamentally that human beings need work,” Broad said. “What we
need is a just vision for that society, not a bunch of these techno-narcissists
lecturing us about how society is supposed to be constructed.”
Still, the universal basic
income debate is indicative of the big-picture deliberations over the future of
work that await the next governor.
Should government
undertake a massive new safety net program to guard against job displacement?
What about using regulation to ensure humans stay relevant in light of new
technology?
The Teamsters have used
their lobbying power to carve out roles for themselves in a changing world. In
San Francisco, they secured a city ordinance that encourages companies
operating delivery robots to use union labor.
As commercial truck
companies explore “platooning,” in which a convoy is controlled by the truck in
the lead, the Teamsters pushed a law to ensure that a company testing that
technology in California has a commercially licensed driver in each truck.
Government intervention has been a key part of the union’s strategy to keep
workers employed.
“It’s when the government
either regulates or uses the threat of regulation that the employers will come
to the table,” Bloch said.
Others say the state of
the economy — near-full employment is making it hard for companies to fill
positions with qualified workers — means businesses will be more open to new
approaches to tackle workforce needs. That could mean benefits that workers
could take from job to job or imposing a shorter workweek that would allow
people to share jobs while taking home full-time pay and benefits.
“There is this opportunity
with employers to start having the conversation about unique and creative ways
to solve their labor market problems that at the same time creates economic
mobility and security for … workers,” said Tim Rainey, executive director of
the California Workforce Investment Board.
The policy solutions
differ, but the refrain from labor, business and educators is remarkably
similar: What the next governor does will play a major role in determining just
how scary the future of work will be.
“This is one of the biggest
wealth opportunities we have in history, one of the biggest opportunities to
alleviate us from burdensome work,” Moenius said.
But, he added, “the
opportunity will only unfold if we pave the way for it today.”
Comments
Post a Comment