2014-2015 Essay Contest First Place Essay

An Analysis of the Impact of Technology on Income Inequality

Solomon Polansky
The Blake School
Minneapolis, Minn.

Luddite (n.): "broadly, one who is opposed to especially technological change."¹ Luddite finds its origin from a certain Ned Ludd who smashed two knitting machines in early 19th century England to protest the developing frontier of technology and its effect on the workforce.² The Luddites' concerns are not without merit and remain relevant today in the United States. Over the last thirty years, U.S. productive output has soared while the number of labor hours has remained constant.³ During this same time period, the top 1% of income earners doubled their percentage of income, while the bottom 90% fell from 70% to 60%.⁴ Ongoing technological advances enable these productive strides, but also drive increasing income inequality by spawning two very distinct groups of winners and losers; those who benefit from technology such as inventors of technology and workers whose productivity is enhanced by technological advance, and those who are negatively impacted through substitution of labor by technology.⁵

Inventors of new technology are the first to benefit from that new technology. In a free market individuals are compensated based on the economic output of their factors of production. These factors of production include physical holdings (land, money) as well as intangibles (labor time, creativity). If an entrepreneur or inventor can successfully develop and market a desirable invention, the market will reward him/her by offering tremendous profits. Note that this unequal distribution of income is not necessarily a bad thing for the economy - in fact, the United States government openly supports new innovation by offering patents through the Patent office, thereby granting a (time-limited) legal monopoly (and the monopoly profits that follow).⁶ But once an inventor earns these large incomes, the wealth inequality over others is unlikely to dissolve easily - there is a "snowballing effect on wealth distribution: top incomes are being saved at high rates, pushing wealth concentration [further] up" thus perpetuating the cycle of inequality.⁷ While by no means will every inventor 'strike gold' with his/her invention (in fact, most do not succeed), a skilled and lucky few will reap tremendous income, thus propelling them into the highest echelon of income.⁸ In short, "the people who benefit most are those with the expertise and creativity to use these advances."⁹ And that drives both the incentive to invent as well as income inequality.

Skilled employees who use technology as a 'tool' to increase their productivity also benefit. Consider highly skilled hedge-fund mangers; these managers are already making a good income, and would not be replaced with a computer (as of current technology ... ) because they use human judgment to select investments. However, they become much more productive (and profitable for the firm) with the addition of computerized data and the skill to use it. Thus, their marginal revenue has increased, and the price the firm will be willing to pay, in salary, will also increase - these traders' incomes therefore increase with the addition of technology.¹⁰ As technology is applied to skilled jobs (which are already high paying), the productivity of those workers increases and their income increases too, thus further extending the income inequality between skilled and unskilled laborers.¹¹

However, not everyone benefits from advances in technology; laborers whose jobs can be substituted by technology are negatively affected. Businesses, by investing in capital such as new technology, will increase outputs while decreasing labor inputs (e.g. automation where purchasing a robot will replace a human worker). The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that manufacturing employees' real output per hour increased from 51.2 units (which is proportional to dollars) per hour in 1990 to 110.3 in 2013; businesses produced forty two percent more output in 2013 than 1998.¹² However, the total number of manufacturing workers actually decreased from 17.4 million in 1990 to 12.1 million in 2013.¹³ A few skilled, knowledgeable employees are required to operate these advanced, high producing machines - in contrast to the hordes of unskilled laborers they replace.¹⁴ In the early phases of technological development it was largely simple manufacturing work being replaced by technology, as manufacturing firms sought to cut costs.¹⁵ But now, with the advent of "Big Data" and analytical tools, even clerical work and professional services (both traditionally secure, white collar jobs) are being rendered obsolete by technology.¹⁶ Technology leads companies to, inevitably, eliminate the workers whose labor has been replaced by a more efficient process in order to remain competitive in their markets. Thus these workers' income has dropped to zero, forcing them into other lower skill industries, such as food and restaurant services, that already have an ample supply of workers, thus driving wages downward.¹⁷ Additionally, rapid globalization, enabled by advances in technology in transportation and communication, has opened up cheaper foreign labor markets for US companies, further eroding the domestic manufacturing base.¹⁸

Applying technology to the economy thus creates both 'winners' and 'losers'. It enables entrepreneurs and inventors, people with natural creativity and determination, to have the chance for great profits. It also increases the productivity (and therefore, income) of those whose "jobs are enhanced by machines"; these groups are the 'winners'.¹⁹ However, technology eliminates the jobs of less skilled (already lower paid) workers by providing a more productive, albeit less 'human,' alternative and forcing workers into lower paying service jobs; these workers are the 'losers'.²⁰ There is a clear schism widening between those benefiting and those being harmed by technology, and it is reflected in increasing income inequality. Ned Ludd was right to be concerned, and there is no easy answer to closing the gap.

Notes

Bibliography

Acemoglu, Daron. "Technology and Inequality." The National Bureau of Economic Research. (Winter 2003). Web. http://www.nber.org/reporter/winter03/technologyandinequality.html

Cole, Julio H. "Milton Friedman on Income Inequality." Journal of Markets and Moraliry. Vol 11, No 2 (Fall 2008). Web. https://www.academia.edu/298328/Milton_Friedman_on_Income_Inequality

Katz, Richard; Lawrence, Robert Z; Spence, Michael. "Manufacturing Globalization." Foreign Affairs, Published ry The CounciJ on Foreign Relations. November/December 2011 Issue. Web. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136594/richard-katz-robert-zlawrence-michael-spence/manufacturing-globalization

Lansley, Steward. "Inequality, the Crash, and the Ongoing Crisis." The Political Quarterly Vol. 83, Issue 4 (October - December 2012). Web. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2012.02357.x/abstract

"Luddite" Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed November 23, 2014. Web. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/luddite

Porter, Edwardo. "Tech Leaps, Job Losses and Rising Inequality." The New York Times. April 15, 2014. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/business/economy/techleaps-job-losses-and-rising-inequality.html?r=1

Reich, Robert B. "How to Shrink Inequality." The Nation. May 26, 2014. Web. http://www.thenation.com/article/179715/how-shrink-inequality#

Rotman, David. "Technology and Inequality." MIT Technology Review. October 21, 2014. Web. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/531726/technology-andinequality/

Saez, Emmanuel; Zucman, Gabriel. "Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data." National Bureau oJEconomic Research. NBER Working Paper No 20625. Web. http://gabrielzucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf

"The USPTO: Who we are." The United States Patent and Trademark Office. Accessed November 21, 2014. Web. http://www.uspto.gov/about/index.jsp

Thompson, Derek. "A Giant Statistical Round-Up of the Income Inequality Crisis in 16 Charts." The Atlantic. December 12, 2012. Web. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-giant-statistical-round-upof-the-income-inequality-crisis-in-16-charts /266074/

"What can labor productivity tell us about the U.S. economy?" Bureau of Labor Statistics Vol. 3 No 12. May 2014. Web. http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/what-can-laborproductivity-tell-us-about-the-us-economy.htm

"Who Exactly are the 1%?"The Economist. January 21, 2012. Web. http://www.economist.com/node/21543178