Toespraak van minister Asscher 'A Future in Robotics'

Toespraak | 06-10-2016

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today I would like to talk about the technological developments in our labour market. The future has always captivated our minds. Technology plays a major part in this captivation. Children often want to become an astronaut or a pilot. Professions made possible by new technology. Yet new technology doesn’t necessarily lead to progress.

Progress depends on how technology is used. How it is programmed.

Take for example the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. The on-board computer HAL-9000 was designed to help astronauts. Yet HAL becomes wary and then tries to kill them. Many people feel threatened by technology. They are afraid that technology will replace them. Yet unlike the film, robots are not the villains. Humans are fully responsible for what robots do. It’s all about how technology is used. How it is programmed. When I think about technology, a different film comes to mind.

Star Trek.

In this film, aliens and humans work together to eradicate poverty. Yet with the same technology, war could have prevailed, and profits could have ended up with a small elite. Yet by making active choices, wealth was distributed fairly.

And as a result, everyone was better off.

My message today is that we can adjust the development of the labour market. And that we can ensure that people and technology are complementary to each other.

I am not saying that this will be easy. I am saying that it is possible. That it is a choice. A necessary choice.

More than 1 in 4 people in the Netherlands believe that by 2050 our society will be less attractive as a result of robotics.¹

We must ensure that this group remains confident in the future:

By depicting a positive picture of the future. By making the choices that lead to that future. And by ensuring that everyone can participate in that future.
Le's first look at the labour market.  We have recovered from the economic crisis. Our economy has grown consecutively over the past nine quarters. More and more people are benefiting from this. And they are finding their way to new jobs.

Since the first quarter of 2014 we have gained 225.000 jobs in our country. This makes the total number of jobs nearly 10 million.²

The number of vacancies also continues to increase, providing opportunities for all job seekers. Unemployment has gradually declined to 5.8%.³

In the past four years, unemployment has never been as low as it is now. In the past six months, the decline in unemployment was the highest among people over 45 years’ old.

And late last week we heard that job seekers over 50 years old are finding their way back into the labour market more quickly, especially in the construction sector.⁴

All of this is good news. But it’s no reason to sit back and relax.

There are still too many unemployed people. Any person who stands by the wayside is one too many.

Vulnerable groups especially are struggling, such as people who are long-term unemployed, people with mental or physical disabilities and low-skilled workers.⁵

The labour market is not sufficiently inclusive. This means that these vulnerable groups have insufficient opportunities to enter the labour market. And unemployment often means that they do not participate in our society. This leads to less social contact, reduced self-esteem and less satisfaction. Work is much more than just income.⁶

 

Therefore, it is important to foster an inclusive labour market and an inclusive society. Everyone must be able to participate: both young and old, poorly educated and highly trained, native Dutch workers and immigrants.

People also worry about the impact of globalization and in particular about technological developments such as robotics, digitization, ‘the Internet of Things’, 3D printing and virtual reality.

What do these developments mean for my job?  Will I become unemployed and will robots take over?

Will our children still be able to find work?

And how will the future of robots be for you, after you complete your education? Because more and more robots are also able to take on higher-skilled work; even for you as future economists and business experts, it is not certain that you will always be needed….⁷

All the more reason to talk today about the effects of digitization and robotics on our labour market.

Robots and innovation do not simply 'happen'.

We develop and encourage them ourselves. We send our children to school. We invest in universities and we stimulate innovation.

Our technical universities make all kinds of robots and book global performances. And we are proud of this, because robots bring us much good.

The care robot team from the Technical University in Eindhoven, for instance, won a gold medal in 2015 at the RoboCup German Open in Magdeburg. Indeed, a soccer team for robots. TU robot builders expect their robotic footballers to be able to defeat the Dutch national team in 10 years time.

Now, if they would say FC Groningen, I would not believe it, but the national football team... yes!

The robotic footballers are very mobile. They can move left, right, forward, backward and diagonally. These capabilities, which are refined each year, will be integrated into care robots for the elderly, so they can continue to live independently for longer.

Robot technology for older people living alone is necessary because this group is growing rapidly.

More than 575,000 single people aged between 65 and 80 are living alone. For the 80+ group the number is 341,000. By 2040, according to Statistics Netherlands, this will be nearly a million for the first group and 750,000 for the second.⁹

There are many examples of robots that support workers, instead of replacing them. Take for example the lift robot, which lifts people out of bed and helps nurses save their backs. Or Da Vinci, the most popular robotic surgeon. In the Netherlands there are already 15 in use; worldwide 1,100.¹⁰

Da Vinci can be used for various surgical procedures, including those on the heart and eyes. The Martini Hospital here in Groningen has one.

Groningen must be where the magic happens. Yesterday Professor Bernard Feringa won a Nobel prize for inventing the world’s tiniest machine. In the future this machine could slip inside the human body to perform a surgical operation or deliver drugs from within. This story not only gives a glimpse into a future of endless possibilities, but also shows what is needed to get to that future. Education! Professor Feringa, a farmer’s son, now inspires many students and researchers to reach for the stars.

There are also robots that clean hospital beds, decreasing the likelihood of infections by 90%. And we also have open bionics that print 3D prostheses.

These examples show that robots and technological innovations can make the lives of nurses and doctors much more pleasant. Yet it’s a win-win situation for all. Time savings lead to cost reduction. Doctors never miss any symptoms in their diagnosis. Patients are aided much better and faster. And nurses have more time to socialize with patients.

Robots are not just about machines that resemble humans and steal our jobs. Robot technology is much more about machines that make our lives easier by supporting us.

These examples all relate to care robotics. This is a deliberate choice. The healthcare sector is important. More than 1.4 million people work in this sector. And more and more robotic technology can be found in hospitals, patient rooms and nursing homes. Currently the process of robotization is much faster in the healthcare sector than in any other industry. The care sector is seen as a spearhead in the development of robotics.

And healthcare is important to us all. Because health and employment are closely connected. In the Netherlands, 80 percent of people that are healthy have a job. Only half of the people that are not healthy, or are disabled, work.¹¹

Health also pays off for employers. Fit employees are absent less often and perform usually better than colleagues who are less healthy.

Of course, it also works the other way: work is generally good for health. In short: health is wealth! 

The robots in the healthcare sector mostly are supportive rather than competitive. Does this all mean that the fear of losing a job is unfounded?

The answer is No.

First, technology enables employers to manufacture products and offer services more cheaply. While these employers win, others lose. Thousands of jobs have already disappeared in the banking and insurance sectors. Last week the ING board announced that it would cut many jobs due to digitization.¹²

Of course, the process digitization is unavoidable. Yet it’s all about how we deal with this process. It would be unfair if the bank profits, while others lose.

I hope that the labour unions will now make a stand. They need to ensure that part of the financial gains end up in the social plans for the employees who will lose their jobs. Yet it would be even better if ING takes it responsibility. The bank needs to show that it won’t sacrifice its employees on the altar of stock market prices.

This also reflects the position of the President of the Dutch Central Bank that banks should be more modest in their promises to shareholders and that returns in double figures are completely unrealistic.¹³

In the long run, we need to think about the taxation of capital. This way, society as a whole can profit from digitization.

Jobs do not disappear because robots suddenly steal them away. The disappearance of jobs is the direct result of what we do as a society. And so it’s quite obvious that that society should help those who lose their jobs.

Workers. Employers. And the government.

So when jobs disappear, we should support the unemployed.

We don’t need to worry that there won’t be any jobs available anymore in the future: people will not be permanently left at the wayside.

Technological innovations will also bring new jobs within other sectors. We just can’t predict when and where. Yet this has always been the case. Who would have thought in the last century that service personnel would be required for 3D printers. Or that there would be ‘search engine optimizers’.

In addition, robots can’t yet measure up to humans. For example, we won’t see a robot plumber join the labour market in the near future. Using all of the human senses simultaneously is simply too complex for robots at this moment.

Robots can do a lot nowadays, also non-standard tasks. But then always in a particular setting. Take for example the robot Spencer who is showing passengers at Schiphol the way. Yet if we would deploy Spencer to a war zone, he would die instantly.¹⁴

We must, however, ensure that people can make the transition to the new tasks.

The question now is: what should we do?

1. Companies should seize opportunities
   First, companies should seize technological opportunities. Companies that are able to utilize new technology and robots quickly have the best growth opportunities and can generate new and more jobs.
   Employers will need to serve the interests of workers as much as possible. Employees won’t contribute to innovations if their job will be at risk. Employees must be assured that their interests matter.
   It involves improving the quality of work.
   More autonomy.
   A healthier and safer work environment.
   More training and permanent education.
   More decent work and work relations. And as much work security as possible. This is not just a moral obligation or ‘The better thing to do’. No, it’s shrewd entrepreneurship. Because workers will only cooperate with new technology if they know they can profit from it as well.
   Let’s foster the kind of technology that actually improves our world and builds more sustainable democracies, environments, jobs.
2. Good institutions that facilitate the work of the future
   Flexibility makes employees less mobile because employers are less likely to invest in the retraining of flex workers. From a different perspective, more unemployment means a heavier burden on our social welfare system.
   Future governments need to think about how we can promote permanent contracts. For example by giving a bonus to employers who offer these contracts. Or an insecurity premium for flex workers. And we need to think about how we are going to protect flex workers, for example by ensuring equal contracts.
   We need to work with employers and unions here: unemployment protection is important, but what is key is that people whose jobs disappear are ready for a new job.
   By investing in retraining, rather than trying to protect jobs, the chances are much higher that people will quickly find a job.
3. Investing in permanent education
   Of course, we cannot guarantee job security. We need to move on from job security to a mobility guarantee. The security that you can respond flexibly to new challenges. It’s the best chance of finding new work.We need to make sure that people are constantly learning. And that they are ready for new jobs. 
   We need to invest in high-standard education and training for everyone. We should move on from the deterministic belief that only the fittest will survive, to the belief that we can make people fit again!
   Right now, compulsory education for children is normal to us. But compulsory education for adults sounds like a patronizing obligation.
   I find that rather strange.
   While we tell our children off when they procrastinate about doing their homework, as adults we procrastinate all of the time.
   A lot of employers and employees postpone vocational training.
   They don’t see the long-term dangers. Yet the consequences of their procrastination are catastrophic. Workers become more vulnerable. Employers are left with employees who are lagging behind, and who may end up stuck in their jobs. We need to end this stalemate position.
   Vocational training is a long-term investment that everyone profits from. The return-on-investment for society regarding a secondary vocational-education degree is 12 years.
   Everyone needs to learn and work simultaneously. There should be no excuse or exception. Because it is the only way to survive.
   Right now, employers and employees are responsible for training and education. I believe governments should take a more prominent role in this.
   This is a step-by-step process. In the short run, this can mean that the transition compensation offered to workers should be used for educational purposes. In addition, I want to reach a vocational training agreement with employers and employees.
   The best guarantee for future mobility is being mobile right now. For example by switching jobs every five years. No, not compulsory. And not for everyone.
   But right now I see the very opposite. People clinging onto their work and then losing everything after 20 years of loyal service. They are left empty-handed, because they have only learnt to do one thing.
   We need to look at how we can facilitate a career switch for people in the 40 to 50 age group, for example by giving them a retraining loan.
   The health sector is a great example of the importance of permanent education.
   As a result of technology and other developments the role of healthcare personnel is changing rapidly. For example, doctors need to be able to handle surgical robots.
   It’s a mistake to think that more technology should be paired with a higher degree of education. Already, in the health sector, there are too many people with higher vocational degrees.
   Instead of a higher education, people need a better education. One that focuses on the skills that are needed.
4. Redistribution and fair taxes
   In the nineteenth century Oscar Wilde wrote that everyone would benefit from intelligent machines if they would be “the property of all”. According to Brynjolfsson, a well-known economist, it’s one of the dirty secrets of economics: “technological progress stimulates the economy and creates prosperity. But there is no economic law that says everyone will benefit”.¹⁵
   That is why we need policy. I think we should make a political choice regarding redistribution and fair taxation. We desperately need to ensure that the wealth is not taken exclusively by the companies who own the robots, and by the 0.1% who own those companies.

   Ifwe fail to do this, poverty and inequality are bound to increase. IMF staffers have also pointed out that increasing income inequality is the defining challenge of our time.¹⁶

   For the Netherlands, this means that we must continue to make the employment of low-skilled workers cheaper, prevent tax evasion by multinationals, and re-inject the profits of these big companies back into society. 

   What’s the point of robots, if people can’t afford to buy the products they make? 

   As a result of the political choices we’ve made over the past few years in the Netherlands, income inequality is small and has been very stable for years. According to the OECD, our low income inequality supports economic growth. ¹⁷

   This is different in other countries, like the United States, where the income inequality, as shown in Milanovic’s elephant trunk is high.¹⁸
   Milanovic’s elephant trunk shows that the world's richest are getting richer. Global figures also show that the western lower middle class is in a fix (the bottom of the trunk). But the emerging middle class in Asia — see the beautiful curvature in the elephant’s back — is doing much better and can look back on 25 great years.
5. ‘Fair deal for the self employed.’

   Yet the Western middle class is lagging behind. Not just employees, but also self-employed workers.

   Thanks to digitization, there are many online platforms that facilitate our lives. For example platforms offering the delivery of products at home, odd jobs around the house, or text-writing services.

   On those websites, supply and demand find each other. Of course, that's great, but there is also a downside to the story. An on-demand system has emerged in which recipients of services — sometimes companies, sometimes individuals — tap the required amount of labour and then close the tap again when the job is done.

   The Economist called this ‘workers on tap’ as a result of the on-demand economy. The quality of work and the rates of many self-employed workers are under pressure as result of the intense competition on the online platforms. The position in relation to their clients is weak. A growing army of working poor is looming.
   It’s a trend in journalism. The Dutch magazine De Groene Amsterdammer noted that a word rate of 10 to 15 cents in the mainstream media is already shamefully low, but that a fee of 1 or 2 cents per word is no exception in the service through online platforms such as Textbroker.
   Journalists themselves are starting to vocalize their concerns. A study by the Dutch Association of Journalists found that 90% of its members support tariff agreements to stop the race to the bottom.
   However, it is not easy to make such arrangements or get them approved. When it comes to self-employed workers who are in a similar position to employees, they can make tariff arrangements in collective agreements.
   The European Court of Justice has concluded this.²⁰

However, there are many self-employed workers whose position is not comparable to that of workers. They are really entrepreneurs, but also have a vulnerable negotiating position with respect to clients. They can now hardly make any arrangements, in compliance with the law governing competition. We need to ask ourselves the question if these workers should also have the right to unite in favour of fairer better rates.

Now, it’s quite likely the one will be played off against the other. An individual journalist or construction worker is now subject to the same prohibition of cartels as large multinational companies.

Sometimes this gives an uneasy feeling. Especially if the consequence is that certain groups of self-employed workers are not able to realize a fair remuneration in their individual consultation with major companies.

It raises the question of whether we should allow these groups of self-employed workers to join forces to agree on a fair price. In other European countries, such as Germany, France and Denmark, there seem to be possibilities for this.²¹

We need to see if we can give these self-employed workers in our country their negotiating freedom back again, and not to limit it with a cartel prohibition.

It may not be easy, and perhaps even requires elections first, but more customization seems necessary to stop the race to ever lower rates for self-employed workers. We must compete on quality, and of course price plays a role, but now self-employed workers have to pay the price for their labour.

Robots are fascinating. But let’s not forget that humans are remarkably ingenious creatures. So versatile, so flexible, so many senses.

We would be complete idiots to neglect the ‘maintenance’ of people. That would be a waste of capital, indeed our human capital.

By deploying robots well we can help many people:

• A robot guide dog for the blind;
• Robotic limbs that almost look and function like a normal ones;
• Exoskeletons that can help crippled people walk again. Not so long now and wheelchairs will be a thing of the past!;
• Robot dolls like Kasper who can help autistic children out of their isolation;
• And there is also Robot Agnes for the elderly. Agnes is never tired, never loses her patience, helps to remember things and always answers.

We must ask ourselves the question of which new robots can be used to help vulnerable groups.

More than 1.5 million people are illiterate or low-literate. Can we develop robots that read texts for them? It could prevent many accidents in the workplace.

More than 1.5 million people have intellectual disabilities, and are facing more and more difficulties in our rapidly changing society. SZW 2016, to be published on TPE digital.

Part of this group is experiencing social exclusion, resulting in loneliness. Can we develop a robot that increases their self-reliance? For example, a robot that can answer simple questions?

From a technological perspective, much is already possible. About 30% of the Dutch think that around the year 2040 we will colonize another planet. That might be optimistic, but it could well be the case.²²

Today I we have discussed that technological innovation such as robotics is something that we want to develop. By designing robots we can design our future.

A good example of a very ambitious goal was the Apollo space programme. In 1961 US President John F. Kennedy told the United States Congress that America had a new goal: "to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth".²³

For a whole decade, people worked extremely hard on this goal.

And they did so successfully. Neil Armstrong stood on the moon in 1969. The Apollo programme was a great success.

Without government intervention this could not have been possible: Kennedy set a target, and the entire government made it possible. As a result, they not only accelerated technological development, but also guided it in a certain direction.

I believe that we also need some kind of Apollo programme for the future of our labour market. One that allows everyone to profit. One that is ambitious and costs money but is also well worth the investment. One ensures that everyone in society, and society as a whole, will benefit.

Kennedy’s brother Robert once said:

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”²⁴

Our future may be better if we set goals, join forces and ensure sufficient capacity.

Therefore I challenge employers. Annually there are 200,000 industrial accidents; sometimes fatal. The application of new technology can reduce burdensome and unsafe work and thereby help to reduce the number of occupational diseases and industrial accidents. Of course, employees can also contribute to fewer work accidents, especially by working safely and complying with safety regulations.

Employers and employees should combine forces and ensure that the number of accidents declines significantly!

There is so much technology already available that can be used to make work healthier and safer. And if it’s not yet available, we should use the thinking power of technical universities to achieve this goal.

A world without industrial accidents and industrial diseases is my dream (the zero accident vision). All industrial accidents are preventable.

That is why the zero vision should be the ultimate target.

And I also challenge you. You are very likely to have a job soon. Yet others will not be so lucky. I want you to make an effort for these people. For example by encouraging your employer to take on more vulnerable groups or to contribute to physical solutions for people with disabilities.

Because one thing is certain:

“Whoever doesn’t want to do anything will find an apology, whoever does will find the means”.