[Desk Column] Good Innovation and Bad Innovation

Right now, in front of your eyes, there is a global job dashboard. Like stock prices, the numbers turn red when they increase and blue when they decrease. Unsurprisingly, these days, it naturally brings a sigh. It is all blue. Europe is particularly concerning. In the 27 countries of the European Union (EU), 59 million jobs are at risk of disappearing this year alone. The U.S. unemployment rate in May was 13.3%, an improvement from April's 14.7%, but still gloomy. During the 2008 financial crisis, the global unemployed numbered 22 million. The current situation is even more severe.

Here is another dashboard. According to McKinsey, by 2030, 400 million to 800 million people worldwide could lose their jobs. This accounts for 15 to 30% of the entire workforce. Over 90% of workers from truck drivers and telemarketers to customs brokers, accountants, and tax accountants might have to leave their workplaces. What on earth is happening?

In other words, the two dashboards have different causes. The first is the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and the second is artificial intelligence (AI). The scale, timing, and industries affected by job losses vary accordingly. The clear difference is this: the former is 'humanity's misfortune,' thus there is a social consensus on the need for a 'quick recovery.' In contrast, the latter is 'humanity's innovation,' and therefore there is widespread agreement that 'rapid acceptance' must accompany it. There is a dual attitude that jobs lost due to the former must be protected, but job losses from the latter must be endured. In other words, the former involves 'reversibility' (the tendency to return to the previous state), while the latter involves 'irreversibility' (the inability to return to the previous state).

The problem arises when these two act simultaneously. Futurist Martin Ford predicted in an interview with the British BBC that COVID-19 would accelerate the adoption of robots. "As COVID-19 changes consumer patterns, a new door called 'automation' has swung wide open." No one knows whether this simultaneous effect will be 'COVID-19 + AI' or 'COVID-19 × AI.' Whether addition or multiplication, humanity's jobs are hanging by a thread. Jeremy Rifkin's 'The End of Work' is becoming a reality.

When we commonly call something 'innovation,' it tends to become an 'absolute good.' Computer innovation, digital innovation, mobile innovation, and even AI innovation. The religion of innovation venerates pioneers (who make big money), creates followers (forming fandoms), and appears to be absolute (monopolizing markets). But is that really the case?

'Innovation' surprisingly has vulnerable aspects. The sharing economy is one example. The situations of the 'Big 3'?Uber, WeWork, and Airbnb?are not promising. The Big 3, which create value by sharing cars (Uber), offices (WeWork), and residences (Airbnb), recently revealed growth limitations and were ultimately hampered by COVID-19. Resistance to sharing is likely to persist after the pandemic. Uber has already laid off 6,700 employees, about 25%, but further reductions are inevitable. WeWork faces the risk of cutting about 50% of its workforce.

The rocket delivery (or dawn delivery) service, touted as a distribution innovation, is also showing its true colors. The harsh working conditions someone must endure during delivery to apartment doors and the excessive labor intensity that leads to talk of 'grinding people down.' Tada, which was considered a mobility innovation, also ended in a 'sad ending.'

Therefore, 'innovation' is not something to cheer unconditionally. 'Bad innovation' destroys jobs, but 'good innovation' expands jobs. 'Bad innovation' causes value conflicts, but 'good innovation' seeks value creation. In the current chaos caused by the onslaught of viruses and artificial intelligence, what we need is 'good innovation.' Innovation that expands jobs, creates value, and gives hope.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.