Written a couple of times about automation — here’s one — and a little bit about re-training programs as well, which sadly don’t work as well as we think. Because automation is a big, complicated topic that people tend to bury their heads in the sand about, I won’t go too deep here. Rather, let’s start with a little story.
In late 2019, I was pretty broke and it was quite depressing. I managed to secure a gig with an apartment locator company, which I ended up liking a lot, because I got to research real estate trends for basically a year. I kinda knew revenue on that gig was eroding because the main boss man stopped responding to my texts, emails, and calls … and sure enough, on New Year’s Eve Day, I got the old heave-ho.
Following the tradition of most heave-hos, here’s what happened: within about 11 minutes of him telling me “revenue erosion…,” my payroll and benefits were cut off. Gone. Meanwhile, it’s a week later now and I still have access to the back-end of his website, his social media profiles, his company’s Mailchimp, etc.
Essentially, I could still do my job, but there’s no mechanism for me to get paid for it or have benefits. And the ending of that part took 11 minutes.
Now, this guy is actually very nice and was supportive of me at a time when I was floundering financially, so all props and prayers to him. That said, the story is indicative of how most top dogs, i.e. “job creators,” think: even if they’re cool to BS with, you are a number. The number needs to get off the books. All the other stuff, where an angry person could tank your brand? Eh, that can wait.
I got laid off from a gig in November 2015 and I controlled the back-end of their website. I got laid off on a Friday. I had that access until probably Tuesday. The layoff sucked. If I had been a demented human being, could I have tanked their website with expletives over that weekend? Sure, sure. I didn’t, because I’m not insane. But I could have, and all the bosses really cared about was getting me off the books.
How are executives commonly rewarded?
- Cost containment
- Growth
- Stakeholders being happy
- Stock price, if public
- 1991-level KPIs
What is the grand promise of automation to an executive, then?
Cost containment.
Some may claim the grand promise is “finding more value-add work for my team” or “reducing the monotony.”
Good thing to say, but ask yourself this: if a guy making $200,000 USD/year doesn’t know your name in an elevator on a Wednesday morning, do you think he really cares about finding you “value-add work?”
He does not.
The thing we’re not discussing around automation — well, one of many things, including the relevance of most males in the first-world — is the greed factor. Lots of functional leaders in the world, sure, but also a lot of guys chasing Bezos-level money. You know a path to Bezos-level money, especially if you can’t design the product, logistics, and multiple offerings that his team did? Contain costs. Don’t use people.
Guys who want to run big businesses have a “window” on their time at the top. It’s all about maximizing that window, whether you’re Mitch McConnell running the Senate or a CEO of a SaaS company. You know it won’t last forever, so you need to get your nut while you can.
Greed and automation is a car crash intersection. We claim “new, valuable jobs will be created.” But will they? We claim “less monotony,” which we’ve been claiming since 1977 without a tremendous amount of luck (in large part because monotonous, busy work makes people feel relevant at their job, and makes them feel like they’re an essential cog who cannot be fired, when in fact they will be the first person fired).
But if the guys at the top have incentives around cost containment, and people are their biggest cost, and their window of “success” for their family is narrow … then what’s going to happen when automation is at scale?
Why is “success” in quotes?
We have very flawed definitions of “success” in the first-world. To most, it means acquisition of more, be that house square footage, salary, bonuses, cars, children, etc. “More” seems to be all we know. This creates some issues around “achievement” versus “fulfillment.”
“Success” should be working as much as you need to, coming home, building relationships with friends, family, and neighbors, and contributing/giving back. That’s not how most people view it, however.
And that skewed definition of success + more robots than workers in 2030 (bank on it) + greed + “windows” of being on top = jobs will be rarer and rarer, and by 2050 they might only exist for people ages about 17-34. We’re already kinda there, but it’s not “official” just yet. Automation will probably make that so.
