In his book, the economist analyzes a world in which technology will replace many professionals and work will disappear. That’s why he says: “We have to concentrate on leisure time.”
When it comes to returning to the office after the holidays, the advice of economist Daniel Süßkind sounds even more urgent: “We have to deal more intensively with leisure time.” As a former political advisor to the British government, fellow in economics at the University of Oxford, visiting professor at King’s College London and author of “A World Without Work” (Bompiani), he explains his point of view as follows: “In the next hundred years there will be technological progress.” it could lead to unprecedented wealth and prosperity, but work will be scarce. Every profession, be it diagnosing an illness, drafting a contract, writing messages, composing music or building a house, will increasingly fall within the reach of computers thanks to the relentless advances in technology. The danger of a world without work for all is therefore one of the greatest challenges of our time.” For Susskind, there are three issues that need to be addressed in the coming decades: the fair distribution of wealth, limiting the growing power of Big Tech , responsible for the development of technologies, and rediscovering the meaning of a world in which work will no longer be at the center of our lives. The author traces the history of the most important changes of our time and pragmatically invites us to take paths other than those of a professional economy.
How did “A World Without Work” come about?
“Every day we hear stories of machines performing tasks that were once thought only humans could do.” But we never take seriously the threat of technological advances and automation in the world of work. According to economist Wassily Leontief, the technological wind that swept the horses will sooner or later have the same impact on people.”
Will robots and computers ultimately take our jobs?
“I don’t think there will be as dramatic a Big Bang as Leontief imagined, but rather a gradual change.”
The fear of automation and innovation has always accompanied the history of technical progress…
“Since the beginning of modern economic growth 300 years ago, we have been worried that technology would take our jobs, but there has always been enough for everyone.” This time, however, will be different, as technology is gradually but inexorably becoming more powerful and powerful.
So what are we risking?
“Technology will create new jobs, but for a variety of reasons people will not be able to do them.” Because they do not have the skills and abilities required to do it, or because the work is not in the same place where they live . Since the dawn of the Internet, it has been said that the world is small and distance no longer matters, but in reality where you live and look for work matters more than ever. And then the work defines the person’s identity. Some prefer to give up certain jobs to protect them. At the moment the challenge is this kind of “frictional” technological unemployment, but later we will face more structural technological unemployment. It is the challenge of the 21st century that our children and grandchildren will experience in the coming decades.”
Do you therefore share the danger of technological unemployment formulated by Keynes in the 1930s?
“I share Keynes’s optimism, even if it may seem worrying. In a sense, technological unemployment is a symptom of success. While humanity has faced an existential problem for most of our history, economic growth has exploded over the last 300 years. The challenge now is how to distribute wealth throughout society when the traditional method (paying people for the work they do) is less effective than in the past.
So how should we respond to this scenario?
“Rethinking education despite its limitations.” We need to teach the skills that make people better in the areas where machines are lacking. Choose careers like nursing or caregiving that require skills currently out of reach of robots. We then need a state that takes on a broader role in the distribution of income in society when we cannot rely on the labor market. The solution? A “conditional” universal basic income to maintain a sense of social solidarity. People could contribute to the common good through other activities, such as volunteering.”
Work is not just a source of income, for many it is also the meaning of life.
“Great names in Western thought have analyzed the relationship between work and the meaning of life. For Freud, work was a guarantee of social order. For Max Weber, a form of religious devotion. For Alfred Marshall the path to fullness of life. Consequently, not working is a merit, a shame. But in other societies from other historical eras, work was considered degrading. In Thebes, ancient Egypt, the law prohibited citizens from engaging in commercial activity for ten years before running for office. In Sparta, young men learning the art of war were required to abstain from any productive activity. In the ideal city theorized by Plato, workers were confined to the artisan class and had no opportunity to engage in state affairs. In ancient mythologies and scriptures, work was considered punishment. Today, however, we are so dependent on work that we can no longer imagine life without it. I therefore invite you to reconsider the connection between work and the meaning of life, because it is not as strong as many think. The other question that arises is how people spend their free time when they are not working. The lockdown imposed by the pandemic was a test.”
Are smart working, short weeks and major layoffs already leading to a new relationship between work and the meaning of life?
“Yes, the idea of starting a career, progressing for several decades and then retiring is pretty outdated. If we have the freedom to live our lives differently, we will find meaning elsewhere.”