Do robots pose a danger to the employment sector and what does future of employment look like‪?‬ Finance & Fury Podcast

Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Say What Wednesday edition. This week’s question is from Phuong.
“Hi Louis - With strikes happening at Sydney’s port recently and worker asking for pay rises, do you think that Robot will eventually replace human workers? And what are future job for younger generation, do you think?”
Thanks for the question – brings up a great point – in todays episode – look at the rise of the robots – does it pose a danger to the employment sector and what the future of employment may look like
 
To start with – look at the rise of robotic workers – in automation
study from Oxford Economics - Robots could take over 20 million manufacturing jobs around the world by 2030 – over the next decade – about 14 million of those were estimated to be in China alone Perspective – 7.8bn population – about 5.15bn aged from 15-65 – working age – 20m is about 0.4% of this working population – or about 0.04% of the population each year China has an economically active population – or in other words – employed individuals of 776m – so 14m being replaced over 10 years is about 1.8% - or 0.18% p.a. To give a comparison – say this was happening in Australia – which it isn’t at the same rate – due to the roles that robots will be replacing in the next decade – Oxford Economics also found the more repetitive the job, the greater the risk of its being wiped out – so these jobs are very limited in Aus – but lets say that we will have the same replacement rate of positions but in Aus it would be the equivalent of 22,700 jobs being lost each year – lots of jobs – but we have just had much larger job losses – ABS said that 594,300 people lost their jobs in April this year due to the shut downs - ABS estimated another 227,700 jobs were lost in May – people have gone back to work – but many jobs are still lost – greater number than would be replaced over the next decade by robots in two months still out of work so over the next 10 years – does sound like a lot of people but perspective is important – wont be massively disruptive as this transition will be gradual – I don’t think this will be as large as disruption as people think – that is because we know about it as a likely possibility – when people are saying something will happen people can adapt – we are very adaptive – Technology changes and the resultant unemployment are a part of creative destruction within an economy – which is a part of the cycle – it is the unknown and massively disruptive technological shifts that create turmoil – even in employment – like a lockdown that puts people out of work People may think that robots replacing jobs is going to be a huge issue – and it may be – I may be way off the mark – but I think it will have less of an impact in the long term – as people can truly adapt Technological change is an economic concept that includes the introduction of labour-saving "mechanical-muscle" machines or technology – automation that replaces the human’s role in production within the economy That technological change can cause short-term job losses is widely accepted – but the view that it can lead to lasting increases in unemployment – structurally – the views are mixed - Participants in the technological unemployment debates can be broadly divided into two camps - the optimists and the pessimists Optimistsagree that innovation may be disruptive to jobs in the short term, yet hold that various compensation effects ensure there is never a long-term negative impact on jobs – with new technology there comes new employment   pessimistscontend that at least in some circumstances, new technologies can lead to a lasting decline in the total number of workers in employment. The phrase "technological unemployment" was popularised by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s Should be noted that the Oxford Study comes from the pessimists of the