Our world is rapidly evolving.
“VUCA” and countless other acronyms fill discussions about AI and courses on various topics, often lacking practical skills.
“AI will transform the job market.”
“Robots will take over our jobs, leaving us unemployed.”
Nothing new, right?
I believe the Deskilling Debate remains highly relevant. As I’ve encountered it personally, I had to find my own path forward. This may not be the ultimate solution or suitable for everyone, but it is my approach.
A bit of background first.
The deskilling debate revolves around the notion that technological advancements and shifts in the labor process can reduce the skill levels required for certain jobs. This idea suggests that as tasks become more automated and standardized, the need for specialized skills decreases, potentially leading to a less skilled workforce overall.
The term “deskilling” was first extensively discussed by Harry Braverman in his 1974 book, “Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century.” Braverman argued that the capitalist mode of production systematically reduces workers’ skill levels to increase control and efficiency, making labor more easily replaceable and diminishing workers’ bargaining power.
Some argue that today’s rapidly evolving technology could displace workers, particularly older, unskilled individuals in economically depressed regions. While this is a valid concern, it overlooks a crucial point: if skilled labor is in short supply, there will eventually be incentives to invest in training. Without this investment, many people could find themselves without decently paid jobs, leading to a potential slowdown in the economy, at least regionally. Economic downturns can lead to deflation, a phenomenon that is rarely seen but, in my view, is not as problematic as often portrayed.
An example: automotive industry is dead (ok, starving to death if you prefer not to see that) in Italy.
It was flourishing – many years back.
Production is gone, labour is at excess supply, so it will be either absorbed by other industries, or…it will be absorbed by other industries (the social cushion can not endure forever, if there is not production of some forms). As a result, some industries will find a soft spot to exploit: lot of labour, low cost, and potentially worth investing in reskilling to make productive. There is always a break even point where demand and supply of labour will meet.
The same dynamic can take place in any country who is refusing the fact that industries are not forever, and that a continuous effort to train people make them more effective, versatile…and socially cheap.
Yet, so far the economists got it right. But my question is: what skills shall we promote the most? Any bet on specialization can backfire: investing in AI when the others got a hedge can be shortsighted, investing in “green jobs” (whatever it means) can be lovely to see, useless in practice. Investing in “humanities” can be beautiful, but lacking tangible results in terms of paying the bills.
My view is that we shall all invest in learning.
Just learning, period.
If we can learn, we can find ourselves enriched with more solutions, in case of opportunities laying in front of us, or may problems be hunting us.
And after learning on books, in courses, via webinars…go act.
I tried: I knew nothing about internet and marketing (20 years of comfy corporate life), then I picked it up during a job break and it gave me energy, ideas and it helped looking into opportunities. Am I by now one the many investor | global head of the world | forbes under 12 | yoga master | noble prize in pizza you can find on the net?
NO. I wish maybe.
I am slightly better than who I was yesterday.
And this, well it is already a lot.
So, deskilling debate will never stop, but start your reskilling journey, and avoid discussing it too much. Just do it (Nike, do not sue me please!).