Margaret Levi, Director, CASBS @ Stanford
Your report is a welcome and nicely documented addition to an on-going debate. But Justin Lai's question is the right one: What will be the long-term effect on the redistribution of jobs and income? Who are the winners and who the losers in the long-run? My question, more precisely, refers to what kinds of people and with what levels of education will be the beneficiaries.

P.S. You might find of interest the CASBS Project on the Future of Work and Workers in Pacific Standard. psmag.com/work
Thanks for the question Margaret. A growing wage premium for high levels of skills, education and experience does seem to have contributed to rising income inequality. Governments can lean against this. In the West they did so from the late nineteenth century, expanding welfare spending and taxation. It's perhaps no coincidence that the debate about the effect of technology on incomes has coincided with a renewed interest on the part of policy makers and politicians in the US and UK in raising levels of the Minimum Wage.

Tasks which require low levels of judgement, limited or no human interaction, are repetitive and predictable are most at risk from technology.

Conversely the sorts of skills or qualities which technology will be pushed to replicate are versatility, the ability to read people and build relationships and creativity.

One thought we’ve been kicking around is whether formal, academic qualifications could become a less reliable signal of competence in this kind of labour market. At college maybe extra-curricular activities, such as entrepreneurship, voluntary work, politics, sport and travel will become more important predictors of labour market success.
Continue reading...