Arbeitsplatzsicherung, Anforderungsprofil, Verlust, Arbeitsplatz, Globalisierung, Industriestaaten, Job security, Occupational profile, Loss, Job, Globalization, Industrialized countries

Alan S. Blinder

English

Research Papers in Economics

CESifo Forum 2/2006 39
Pro and Contra
ACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT
REQUIRE PHYSICAL CONTACT
OR GEOGRAPHICAL PROXIMITY
ARE MOST AT RISK
ALAN S. BLINDER*
I beg to differ, though only modestly, with the Levy-
Murnane view that the (mutually reinforcing) com-
bination of globalization and computerization
threatens jobs that can be routinized, but not jobs
that involve what they call expert thinking and com-
plex communication. To understand the similarities
and differences, picture a Venn diagram with two
overlapping circles.
Circle C (for computerization) encompasses all the
jobs that computers either can do now or will be able
to do in the future. As Levy and Murnane empha-
size, these are largely routine (or routinizable) tasks,
whether physical or mental – like assembly line work
or rudimentary call center tasks where humans can
be replaced by voice recognition systems. The
upward march of technology virtually dictates that
Circle C will expand year after year.
Circle O (for offshoring) encompasses all the jobs
that can be done offshore – meaning in a country
other than the one in which the good or service is
sold – either now or in the future.This set includes
the vast majority of manufacturing jobs,even those
that involve highly complex thinking and commu-
nication, plus jobs in impersonal services – which I
define as services that can be delivered across long
distance with little or no diminution in quality.
Some obvious examples are call centers and
Internet retailing. Improvements in technology
and the entrance of many developing countries
(e.g., India and China) into the modern world vir-
tually guarantee that Circle C will also expand
over time.
Levy and Murnane have focused our attention on
Circle C; I am trying to call attention to Circle O.
Now, my main point is that these two circles are far
from identical.There are jobs that can be computer-
ized but cannot be transferred offshore (e.g., replac-
ing parking lot attendants by machines), and there
are jobs that can be done offshore but not comput-
erized (e.g., security analysis and writing legal
briefs). That is why I beg to differ with Professors
Levy and Murnane.
But my second point is that the two circles do over-
lap considerably.Any activity that is routinizable and
does not require physical contact and/or geographic
proximity is presumably a candidate for offshoring.
It is thus in both Circle C and Circle O.And there are
a lot of such jobs, which is why I beg to differ only
modestly.
Let’s explore the differences briefly,relating them to
the question at hand: the link between skills and
wages. To begin, Levy and Murnane are almost cer-
tainly right that wages will be under pressure in rou-
tinizable jobs in which workers can be replaced by
computers. Jobs that involve higher-order thinking,
judgment, and communication skills are relatively
immune from the competition of machines. Hence
the view that better-skilled workers will fare better
in the job market of the future makes sense, other
things equal.
But other things will not be equal. Let’s think now
about the jobs that can be offshored but cannot be
computerized. Because of advances in telecommuni-
cations and the Internet, plus the large number of
well-educated, English-speaking people in India and
elsewhere, more and more high-skill jobs that require
expert thinking and/or complex communication (but
not physical presence) will be deliverable remotely in
the future. That includes many high-wage jobs that
may never be routinized and performed by computers
– such as preparing tax returns and writing software.
People who perform these tasks in rich countries will
find themselves competing with equally-qualified –
and numerous – workers in poor countries. At the
same time, holders of many low-wage jobs in rich
* Blinder is Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Econo-
mics at Princeton University.countries (such as child care and janitorial services)
are immune to foreign competition because what they
do requires personal delivery.
This analysis suggests that, in the rich countries,
relative wages will fall in the impersonally-deliv-
ered services and rise in the personally-delivered
services – once again, other things equal. The im-
portant point here is that the personal/impersonal
distinction seems largely uncorrelated with the
more familiar skilled/unskilled distinction. Just
think of cab drivers and surgeons (both personal
services) on the one hand versus call center opera-
tors and security analysts (both impersonal ser-
vices) on the other.
Levy and Murnane are not wrong; they are right. If
your job can be performed by a computer, your
future job market prospects are in peril. But there is
also a whole class of jobs – and a big class at that –
for which job market competition comes not from
computers but from educated workers in poor coun-
tries, whose services can be delivered electronically
to any market in the world.
CESifo Forum 2/2006 40
Pro and Contra

Activities that do not require physical contact or geographical proximity

http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/ZS/ZS-CESifo_Forum/zs-for-2006/zs-for-2006-2/forum2-06-con.pdf

Activities that do not require physical contact or geographical proximity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics