I’ve been thinking a lot this year about inequality and technology and how we got here and where we might be going. Why is school free but not food? Why do some forms of automation help people while others hurt them? Is it even possible for us to reach a post-scarcity world?

“Good” Automation

I don’t hear a lot of people complain about the existence of their dishwasher, washing machine, barbecue, or vacuum cleaner. They may complain when they don’t work well, but when they do work it seems like these automations are well-liked. Not many yearn to spend more hours in their day doing laundry or starting fires.

These automations mostly have something in common: they are used to automate a task the person believes would otherwise be done by themselves, and which they’d rather not do. They are often also owned by the person, but laundromats and other forms of rented automation still improve the person’s life.

Yet these automations all exist at the expense of jobs which used to exist. These tasks were not always done by a person for themselves, and many fewer people are paid to do these tasks now that machines can do them. I do think, however, that most people imagine that they are not in the class that would ever have employed someone to do this work (even if they are) and so it is viewed almost entirely as personal labour-saving and not labour-destroying.

Jobs

“At the expense of jobs” is quite an idea. Implicit in this is the idea that “having a job” is good or even necessary. When someone who up until this point has been employed scrubbing clothes is displaced by a washer, is it the hours spent scrubbing that they miss? I rather expect that what they miss is income. Fundamentally, perhaps not even income but the things that an income can provide: food, shelter, etc.

People often talk about automations which are viewed as labour-destroying rather than labour-saving in terms like “more jobs will be created” etc. I think this whole discussion misses the point. Jobs are not what we want. Money is barely what we want. What we want is food.

“Bad” Automation

In fact, this hyper-focus on employment is, I believe, a key factor in what makes many automations ultimately “bad” for us. The cycle is something like this: a new automation comes out which allows a person to accomplish the same work in less time. Or, viewed another way, to accomplish more in the same time. Or, viewed another way, for a smaller group to accomplish what a larger group used to accomplish.

If our driving force is that everyone must be fully-employed, then accomplishing the same amount in less time is no good, since that leaves unemployed time. Accomplishing more in the same time is fine, but who gets the benefit of this “more” that is accomplished? Rarely in our existing system is the answer the person themselves. And what if their job has nothing “more” for them to do? Well then we shrink the group, which shrinks expenses for the employer. Who benefits from that? Neither the one who left nor those who remain.

The Replicator Problem

Imagine that tomorrow is announced the first viable replicator. Post-scarcity is here! All else being equal, what will happen? Every production job is gone, most transport jobs, and many others besides. Some corporation buys the patent to the replicator, and they are the only ones operating them. Maybe they sell them, and you have to buy the “design files” for items to be produced from them.

I do not believe that post-scarcity is being prevented by a lack of technological advancement. Not when every advancement is owned and the bulk of humanity is driven to continue seeking jobs forever. Even with limitless energy and replicator technology, people would now be looking for what job they can do to afford to operate the replicator.

Indeed we are already closer to post-scarcity than we often like to admit. Energy is plentiful and cheap (and, increasingly, clean), automation is widespread, a handful of people compared to the historical norm now produce all of the food we all eat (and throw out) every day.

Post-Jobs

Therefore, I believe in order to reach post-scarcity we must first target post-jobs. This may seem backwards: isn’t post-scarcity supposed to be what makes it possible for us to go post-jobs? By post-jobs I don’t mean that no one ever works again doing anything productive (indeed, even post-scarcity would never mean that; humans love doing things) but rather decoupling that labour from the things people want and need: especially fundamentals like food, housing, etc.

Of course this is nothing new. Many different ideas have been proposed for this decoupling. Under capitalism, the idea of “basic income” has become very popular as a way of keeping the system intact while starting this decoupling.

So what can I do? What can you do? How do we make real progress and not just technological progress? I don’t know. If history has taught me anything it may be that we cannot. Certainly nothing any one of us does will accomplish much. Like every important problem stemming from this, it is ultimately a collective action problem, and we are if anything getting worse at acting collectively, not better. So do we give up? Of course not. But we need to be thinking about the whole picture if we want to get to a future where people work less and have more, rather than the opposite.

Congratulations on your victory at the polls. I join with many other Canadians in my excitement to see such a large change take place across the country. While I have no doubt that you will do you best to represent your riding in Parliament, I understand that once the excitement of winning is over there are so many conflicting priorities. Many promises get made during a campaign, but a real government has to deal with ever-changing realities and public opinion. Issues that seemed so important before the election pale in comparison to the mountain of work you are faced with afterwards.

During the campaign the Liberal party made a promise. A promise that this would be the last election run under First-Past-The-Post. This is a promise that we as Canadians took seriously. Many took up the cry of “strategic voting… just one last time!” Your seat is in no small part a result of that hope.

To illustrate the problem with our current electoral system, consider your own constituents. Almost half of your riding did not vote for you. Does this mean you cannot represent their interests? Maybe not. But it does mean that they will often feel that way. They voted for “the other guy”, they got you, and they feel as though their voice is no longer part of what happens in Ottawa.

It does not have to be this way. There are many ways of voting in representatives that result in a much closer match between number of seats and number of votes. These systems are not strange or new, but in fact popular and well-tested in many democracies around the world. Systems where votes no longer get “lost” and people no longer feel like there is no one representing their voice. As much as I disagree with, say, the Conservative voters in my riding, I completely believe they deserve to have a representative who agrees with their views. That’s what democracy is all about.

Friends of mine fear that with your party’s large victory, you will no longer feel the pressure of this issue. After all, there are many important issues facing Canada that may seem much more pressing. The next election is quite some time away. You may feel as though the current system got you your seat, and so it may help you again in the future. This promise from a party working to win becomes a forgotten memory. I remind you that you were elected, in no small part, on the hope of this promise. I hope that you will stand with me in working to preserve the right of all Canadians to a voice in their parliament. I hope you will not forget this promise.

Canada is watching.