Independent Accurate
Unbiased Disciplined
The Passing Parade

How the Coming Wave of Job Automation Will Affect You

By David Galland | The Passing Parade | February 10, 2017

Dear Parader,

One of the more interesting mental exercises related to predicting the future involves trying to fathom the impact the rise of robots will have on humanity.

We can be quite sure that in the proverbial blink, robots will be doing all the war fighting. After that, what’s the point? But does that then lead to the sort of robotic apocalypse so well envisioned in Terminator?

I also suspect it’s only a matter of time before the idea of sex bots goes from being an “eew” sort of thing to a household appliance. Well, at least in some households. After all, we already live in a world where every possible iteration of sexual proclivity is not just accepted but celebrated. So, who’s to deny the unmated a good snogging from the Yabadabdo Sexbot 2000?

In fact, in a recent survey, 1 in 4 adults aged 18 to 34 said they would “date” a robot. But what will the impact of bionic sex partners be on society—or birth rates, for that matter? It’s all but impossible to see through the fog to the answers.

We already have robo news reporters (you didn’t actually think humans write the crap passed off for news these days, did you?) Of course, as the news writing programs become more and more sophisticated, might the algorithms be tweaked to influence the masses to buy an advertiser’s product or, more onerously, to create a desired political outcome? You know, kind of how Google tried to get Hillary elected?

In terms of managing money, we already have robo traders and robo advisors. But what happens when these technologies become self-learning? Will the competing programs become so adept at exploiting kinks in the armor of Mr. Market that they will effectively nullify each other?

It’s also abundantly clear that self-driving cars will become the norm within the next decade. As someone who hates driving, that is a development I eagerly await. But imagine the sweeping changes self-driving cars will have on insurance, road building, car manufacturers, trucking, energy usage, the urban landscape, the taxi industry, government and regulations (will we still need driver’s licenses?), senior mobility, etc. It’s staggering to contemplate, and it’s just over the horizon.

I could continue, but as I am preparing for a trip to Tafí de Valle in the neighboring province of Tucumán here in Argentina tomorrow morning, I’ll shuffle toward the featured article of this week’s musings—a look at the impact of automation on the structure of the workforce by friend and associate Stephen McBride.

This is a particularly interesting topic on many levels. What percentage of the workforce is at risk of being replaced by automation? Where will the displaced find new jobs? What job skills will remain largely immune to automation? How will the US government, which is funded to the tune of 92% by income-related taxes, replace the lost revenue… a robot tax?

It’s a big topic, too big for a single Parade, but we must start somewhere. And with that, I turn the podium over to Stephen.

How the Coming Wave of Job Automation Will Affect You

By Stephen McBride

The 227,000 jobs added to the payroll in January marked the 76th straight month of expansion. The headline number is impressive. But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find these jobs “aren’t what they used to be.”

Since 2000, the creation of full-time positions has slowed significantly. The private sector used to add full-time jobs at 2–3% per annum. In 2000, that number fell below 2%. Since 2008, it has been below 1%.

The majority of positions created since 2010 have been temporary. Around 20–50% of employees at the likes of Google and Walmart now fall into this category. With the explosion of contract workers, “workforce solution” firms now generate an estimated $1 trillion in revenue every year.

The declining quality of jobs has caused many to stop looking for work. The labor force participation rate is near the lowest level since 1978. Hordes of Baby Boomers retiring skews the data somewhat, but the rate for workers in their prime isn’t pretty either. Almost 12% of men aged 25–64 aren’t in the workforce—a near five-fold increase in 60 years.

So what has caused this shift?

Automation Annihilation

Steven Berkenfeld, a managing director in the investment banking division at Barclays, summed up the thought process of companies hiring today: “Can I automate it? If not, can I outsource it? If not, can I give it to an independent contractor?” Hiring an employee is the last resort.

Over the past four decades, millions of jobs have been lost to automation. The manufacturing sector is a prime example. While productivity has increased, employment has fallen.

We can see this trend when comparing companies across time. The most valuable US firm in 1964 was AT&T. Then, it was worth $267 billion (in 2016 dollars) and employed 758,611 people. Today, Google is worth $370 billion and has only 55,000 employees.

Many workers have already been replaced by machines, but the number is only set to rise.

A 2013 study from the University of Oxford concluded that 47% of jobs in the US will likely be automated over the next two decades. And a 2015 report by McKinsey found that the majority of tasks performed in sectors like manufacturing and food service can be automated with currently demonstrable technology.

Technological advancement has created more jobs than it has destroyed in the past. However, the big problem is the lag time it takes to forge those new careers. Given the high cost of living in the US today, even a small lag could be financially devastating.

(Automation isn’t just impacting the labor force, it’s also having a significant impact on investment markets. Luckily, there are 3 Proven Strategies for Investing in Uncertain Markets Like These. Find out more with this free report)

Let’s take a look at the implications of job displacement going forward…

The Missing Middle

Due to an inability to secure a full-time job, McKinsey estimates 20–30% of workers now partake in contingency work to supplement their income. Work in the “gig economy” can be fun, but it doesn’t provide a stable, reliable wage. Sure, one can survive on it, but it’s hard to get mortgage approval or support a family with it.

One of the reasons the US became an economic behemoth was its large middle class. With the loss of traditional careers, this trend is now in reverse. Over time, employment will likely become polarized as “Middle America” is hollowed out.

Lower-quality careers ultimately mean lower pay… and when incomes drop, people have less to spend. Given that consumption now accounts for 70% of economic activity, this is a matter of great concern. As the Fed has stated: Recoveries don’t die of old age. It’s usually falling demand that leads to their death.

Many Americans are unable to find full-time employment, but they are spending more trying to attain it. Outstanding student loans now total a whopping $1.4 trillion. This isn’t a problem if individuals have the ability to pay. But with 45% of recent college graduates underemployed and 10% over 90 days late on payments, it’s a big problem.

In 2013, the Department of Labor predicted 65% of school children will be employed in jobs that don’t yet exist. Therefore, many of the skills they are learning today will likely be obsolete in the near future.

And it’s not only job seekers who are affected. With dependency ratios collapsing, who will fund the pensions of the retiring Boomers?

Displacement does not only have economic consequences, it also has profound social consequences. A Gallup study found that having a job was the number one social value. Unemployment is linked to increased drug use and depression. It’s also positively correlated with crime.

While automation will have a major impact on the future of employment, the outlook is not all bad.

Machines may be rendering many skills useless, but creativity is where humans still have an edge. McKinsey listed “managing others” and “applying expertise” as the least susceptible to automation. Likewise, Deloitte identified cognitive skills as the most important to have going forward.

Machines may be advancing, but the future is likely to be one of collaboration, not competition. There will be serious challenges in the near term as many jobs are displaced by technology. But in the end, who would bet against the “ascent of man”?

(Learn how automated investment strategies with peer-to-peer lending can earn you yields on your savings that are even 10 times higher than what you’re earning in money market funds in our free report, Welcome to the Bank of You. Download the report here)

On Islam

David again.

In last week’s missive, I promised to remain entirely apolitical for this edition, and I am sticking to my guns.

However, on re-reading the last edition, I thought some readers might conclude that I’m not a big fan of Islam.

And they would be right.

You see, I don’t care in the slightest for the cultural dictates of the religion. That is also true, to a greater or lesser degree, for all other religions.

That’s because I don’t believe in magic or invisible superheroes. Even so, what anyone else believes is generally of no interest to me at all. If believing in a god or gods helps a person get through the day, then within a certain range of civil behavior, it’s probably a good thing.

One can’t ignore, however, that some people get so wrapped up in their version of god that they do bad things. Or allow people to do bad things to them. That unassailable truth can be seen in the hundreds of people in the Peoples Temple religious group who drank the poison Kool-Aid served up by Reverend Jim Jones on that dark day in Guyana.

How is that different than allowing yourself to be outfitted with a bomb vest? Or spending your life swathed head to toe, or unable to drive a car, simply because some mullah dictates it?

While it is a complete cliché, I’m happy to report that I have several Muslim friends. They are regular folks, doing what they must do to get through the chaos we call life. Though I think it’s a bit of a cop-out to live your life by dictates and customs set out a couple of millennia ago, if one finds such guidelines helpful, so be it.

That’s none of my business.

It becomes my business or, more to the point, the business of society at large, when members of the belief system become convinced it is justified to commit atrocities on innocents. Can there be any doubt that a certain percentage of the Reverend Jones’s supplicants, if asked, would have slipped into suicide vests?

Therefore, it seems only logical that those tasked with protecting the populace from such fanaticism might do the equivalent of profiling at points of entry.

What if the Peoples Temple worshippers hadn’t self-destructed in Guyana, but instead had grown into the millions and adopted a distinctive garb to set themselves apart from non-believers? Maybe draping themselves in shower curtains painted with pink flamingos? And what if hardly a week went by without one or more of them launching murderous attacks on the public? Wouldn’t it be okay to “trust but verify” when they arrived at the border?

In any event, I am not a racist or against any peaceful beliefs… no matter how fantastical they may be. Instead, I consider myself a realist.

And while I ardently wish no one felt the need to blow people up for any reason, the reality is that they do. And, sadly, those doing the blowing up skew heavily (99%?) toward Islam. So, until something changes, a bit of vigilance doesn’t seem untoward to me.

Hope that clears the matter up.

Here Come the Clowns

People too stupid to have money. I remember years ago when Oral Roberts, a television preacher, announced that if he didn’t raise $8 million by a certain date, he would be called away to heaven.

Remarkably, a man stepped forward to write him a check for $1.3 million to help meet his goal. When asked by reporters if he did it because he was a fan of Roberts, the man answered to the effect of, “No, I hadn’t even heard of him before. But he seemed like a nice man, and I didn’t want him to go to heaven in a hurry.”

While one appreciates the generous sentimentality of Oral’s savior, it’s hard to find a motive—other than blunt stupidity—that would lead someone to spend $100,000 to buy a single Cheeto.

Why would they do it? Apparently it is because, as you can see, the crispy snack item bears a vague resemblance to Harambe, the mountain gorilla who was shot in its enclosure last year when another dumb person let their three-year-old kid fall into it. Here’s the story.

And with that, I’ll sign off for the week by thanking you for reading, with an extra dollop of thankfulness for those of you who did the exact opposite of paying huge sums for a Cheeto and took me up on my offer last week to give Compelling Investments Quantified a test run with our six-month risk-free trial. The offer still stands…

Until next week,

David Galland
David Galland
Managing Editor, The Passing Parade

David Galland's Thought-Provoking Articles Have Moved to RiskHedge!

Publication of The Passing Parade has been discontinued—follow David on RiskHedge.

Click Here

If you enjoyed this read, we’d love you to Share on:


Important Disclosures
Use of this content, the Garret/Galland Research website and related websites and applications, is provided pursuant to the Garret/Galland Research Terms & Conditions of Use.

Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited
The information provided in this publication is private, privileged, and confidential information, licensed for your sole individual use as a subscriber. Garret/Galland Research reserves all rights to the content of this publication and related materials. Forwarding, copying, disseminating, or distributing this report in whole or in part, including substantial quotation of any portion the publication or any release of specific investment recommendations, is strictly prohibited.

Participation in such activity is grounds for immediate termination of all subscriptions of registered subscribers deemed to be involved at Garret/Galland Research’s sole discretion, may violate the copyright laws of the United States, and may subject the violator to legal prosecution. Garret/Galland Research reserves the right to monitor the use of this publication without disclosure by any electronic means it deems necessary and may change those means without notice at any time. If you have received this publication and are not the intended subscriber, please contact

The Garret/Galland Research website, Compelling Investments Quantified and The Passing Parade; The Tangible Investor and The New Abnormal are published by Garret/Galland Research. Information contained in such publications is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The information contained in such publications is not intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial situation. The opinions expressed in such publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and there is no obligation to update any such information. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.

Olivier Garret, David Galland, Garret/Galland Research, and other entities in which they have an interest, employees, officers, family, and associates, may from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these publications or website. Corporate policies are in effect that attempt to avoid potential conflicts of interest and resolve conflicts of interest that do arise in a timely fashion.

Garret/Galland Research reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and if it does so, it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period. Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or reproduction or rebroadcast of any Garret/Galland Research publication or website, any infringement or misappropriation of Garret/Galland Research’s intellectual property or other proprietary rights, or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Garret/Galland Research.

Affiliate Notice
Garret/Galland Research has affiliate agreements in place that may include fee sharing. Likewise, from time to time Garret/Galland Research may engage in affiliate programs offered by other companies, though corporate policy firmly dictates that such agreements will have no influence on any product or service recommendations, nor alter the pricing that would otherwise be available in absence of such an agreement. As always, it is important that you do your own due diligence before transacting any business with any firm, for any product or service.

Legal Disclosures:
All material presented herein is believed to be reliable, but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice.  Olivier Garret, David Galland, and Garret/Galland Research and/or its staff may invest in recommendations covered by Garret/Galland Research’s publications when providing adequate disclosure to subscribers.  In order to avoid potential conflicts of interests, investment in any covered recommendations will follow the terms of Garret/Galland Research’s Ethics and Trading Policy.

This website has links to other agencies and organizations. When you go to another site through the links, you are no longer on our site and are subject to the terms and conditions of the new sites.

Please review the privacy policies on those websites to understand their personal information handling practices. We make no representations concerning the privacy policies of these third party websites.
Unauthorized attempts to upload information and/or change information on any portion of this site are strictly prohibited and are subject to prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information and Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996 (see Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1030).

Please note: Changes to this legal statement or to the privacy policy will be documented here. Check back periodically for the latest updates.