IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v51y2022i3p511-559..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income and Economic Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Ewan McGaughey

Abstract

Will the internet, robotics and artificial intelligence mean a ‘jobless future’? A recent narrative, endorsed by tech-billionaires, says we face mass unemployment, and we need a basic income. In contrast, this article shows why the law can achieve full employment with fair incomes, and holidays with pay. Universal human rights, including the right to ‘share in scientific advancement and its benefits’, set the proper guiding principles. Three distinct views of the causes of unemployment are that it is a ‘natural’ phenomenon, that technology may propel it, or that it is social and legal choice: to let capital owners restrict investment in jobs. Only the third view has any credible evidence to support it. Technology may create redundancies, but unemployment is a purely social phenomenon. After World War Two, 42% of UK jobs were redundant but social policy maintained full employment. This said, transition to new technology, when markets are left alone, can be exceedingly slow: a staggering 88% of American horses lost their jobs after the Model T Ford, but only over 45 years. Both the global financial crisis from 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 illustrate the importance of social and legal policy, and suggest it is time to learn. Taking lessons from history, it is clear that unemployment is driven by inequality of wealth and of votes in the economy. To uphold human rights, governments should reprogramme the law, for full employment, fair incomes and more leisure, on a living planet. Robot owners will not automate your job away, if we defend economic democracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ewan McGaughey, 2022. "Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income and Economic Democracy," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(3), pages 511-559.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:3:p:511-559.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwab010
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:3:p:511-559.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.