IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Future Shock? The Impact of Automation on Canada’s Labour Market

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Oschinski

    (PwC LLP)

  • Rosalie Wyonch

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

Abstract

Throughout history, technological change has helped lift people out of squalor and poverty, raised standards of living and improved well-being. Technological change, however, can also be disruptive – rendering specific occupations and skills obsolete, unsettling economic structures and contributing to unemployment and economic uncertainty. Innovation is a driving factor of productivity and economic growth, but increasing productivity means that fewer people are needed to produce the same amount of goods. The increasing pace of technological change has led some to speculate that, in the digital era, technology might destroy old jobs faster than new ones are created. Job losses can occur, however, only if innovation outstrips growth in demand for new products and services. As well, the potential for automation does not necessarily translate into actual automation: the decision to automate depends on factors such as firm size, competitive pressure and the cost of a machine versus the cost of human labour. This Commentary assesses the impact of technological change on Canada’s labour market over the past 30 years and highlights its implications for the near future. If the past is any guide, a continuation of gradual changes can be expected in the demand for skills in the labour force. This is a natural market reaction to technological change. There is unlikely to be a drastic shift in employment due to automation in the near future, although some industries and types of occupations will be more disrupted than others. Here, public policy could both encourage automation and prepare the workforce for the transition. Key findings are as follows: • It is very unlikely that employment in occupations highly susceptible to automation (35 percent of Canada’s employment) will be completely replaced by smart machines over the next few years. • Canadian employment is concentrated in industries that have a low risk of automation, with industries where less than a quarter of the jobs are susceptible to automation accounting for 27.5 percent of total employment (4.9 million jobs). Industries where more than three-quarters of the jobs are at high risk of automation account for only 1.7 percent of employment (310,000 jobs). This implies that Canada’s diversified economy and labour force are well positioned to adapt to rapid technological change. • Occupations high in abstract, complex-decision-making skills with a strong focus on creativity, critical thinking and interpersonal social skills have a relatively low risk of being automated. An increase in demand for these skills is likely over the near and medium term. • As the rate of technological progress increases and digitization permeates different occupations and industries, technical job-specific skills might become obsolete relatively quickly. This indicates a need to increase opportunities for continuous education and lifelong learning. Educational institutions such as colleges, technical schools and apprenticeship programs likely will have an expanded role over the lifecycle of employment as people learn to adapt to changing conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Oschinski & Rosalie Wyonch, 2017. "Future Shock? The Impact of Automation on Canada’s Labour Market," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 472, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:472
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Update_Commentary%20472%20web.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David A. Green & Benjamin M. Sand, 2015. "Has the Canadian labour market polarized?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 48(2), pages 612-646, May.
    2. Peter Howitt, 2015. "Mushrooms and Yeast: The Implications of Technological Progress for Canada's Economic Growth," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 433, September.
    3. A. Rainer & R. Strohmaier, 2014. "Modeling the diffusion of general purpose technologies in an evolutionary multi-sector framework," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(3), pages 425-444, August.
    4. Lipsey, Richard G. & Carlaw, Kenneth I. & Bekar, Clifford T., 2005. "Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199290895.
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Pascual Restrepo, 2016. "The Race Between Machine and Man: Implications of Technology for Growth, Factor Shares and Employment," NBER Working Papers 22252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Anton A. Cheremukhin, 2014. "Middle-skill jobs lost in U.S. labor market polarization," Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, vol. 9(5), pages 1-4, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Duan, Dingyun & Chen, Shaojian & Feng, Zongxian & Li, Jun, 2023. "Industrial robots and firm productivity," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 388-406.
    2. Leibrecht, Markus & Scharler, Johann & Zhoufu, Yan, 2023. "Automation and unemployment: Does collective bargaining moderate their association?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 264-276.
    3. Wang, Chengzhang & Zheng, Min & Bai, Xiaoming & Li, Youwei & Shen, Wei, 2023. "Future of jobs in China under the impact of artificial intelligence," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(PA).
    4. Búi K Petersen & James Chowhan & Gordon B Cooke & Ray Gosine & Peter J Warrian, 2023. "Automation and the future of work: An intersectional study of the role of human capital, income, gender and visible minority status," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 44(3), pages 703-727, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kariem Soliman, 2021. "Are Industrial Robots a new GPT? A Panel Study of Nine European Countries with Capital and Quality-adjusted Industrial Robots as Drivers of Labour Productivity Growth," EIIW Discussion paper disbei307, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    2. Clifford Bekar & Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2018. "General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: a review," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 1005-1033, December.
    3. Tilman Santarius & Johanna Pohl & Steffen Lange, 2020. "Digitalization and the Decoupling Debate: Can ICT Help to Reduce Environmental Impacts While the Economy Keeps Growing?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Rosalie Wyonch, 2018. "Risk and Readiness: The Impact of Automation on Provincial Labour Markets," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 499, January.
    5. Liu, Yong & Du, Jun-liang & Yang, Jin-bi & Qian, Wu-yong & Forrest, Jeffrey Yi-Lin, 2019. "An incentive mechanism for general purpose technologies R&D based on the concept of super-conflict equilibrium: Empirical evidence from nano industrial technology in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 185-197.
    6. Jabłoński Marek, 2019. "Interdependence Among Creativity, Education, and Job Experience: A Municipal Company in Poland," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 27(4), pages 48-70, December.
    7. Rauf Gönenç & Béatrice Guérard, 2017. "Austria’s digital transition: The diffusion challenge," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1430, OECD Publishing.
    8. Loebbing, Jonas, 2018. "An Elementary Theory of Endogenous Technical Change and Wage Inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181603, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Grillitsch, Markus & Asheim, Björn & Fünfschilling, Lea & Kelmenson, Sophie & Lowe, Nichola & Lundquist, Karl Johan & Mahmoud, Yahia & Martynovich, Mikhail & Mattson, Pauline & Miörner, Johan & Nilsso, 2023. "Rescaling: An Analytical Lense to Study Economic and Industrial Shifts," Papers in Innovation Studies 2023/11, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    10. Iftekhairul Islam & Fahad Shaon, 2020. "If the Prospect of Some Occupations Are Stagnating With Technological Advancement? A Task Attribute Approach to Detect Employment Vulnerability," Papers 2001.02783, arXiv.org.
    11. Brett M. Frischmann & Christiaan Hogendorn, 2015. "Retrospectives: The Marginal Cost Controversy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    12. Ranfeng Qiu & John Cantwell, 2018. "The international geography of general purpose technologies (GPTs) and internationalisation of corporate technological innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 1-24, January.
    13. Mark Knell & Simone Vannuccini, 2022. "Tools and concepts for understanding disruptive technological change after Schumpeter," Jena Economics Research Papers 2022-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Jeffrey Ding & Allan Dafoe, 2021. "Engines of Power: Electricity, AI, and General-Purpose Military Transformations," Papers 2106.04338, arXiv.org.
    15. Islam, Nizamul & Colombino, Ugo, 2018. "The case for NIT+FT in Europe. An empirical optimal taxation exercise," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 38-69.
    16. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    17. Dario Cords & Klaus Prettner, 2022. "Technological unemployment revisited: automation in a search and matching framework [The future of work: meeting the global challenges of demographic change and automation]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 115-135.
    18. Francesco Quatraro, 2010. "Martin Fransman: the new ICT ecosystem. Implications for Europe," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 321-328, April.
    19. Anton Korinek & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2018. "Artificial Intelligence and Its Implications for Income Distribution and Unemployment," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 349-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Dirk Antonczyk & Thomas DeLeire & Bernd Fitzenberger, 2018. "Polarization and Rising Wage Inequality: Comparing the U.S. and Germany," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-33, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Education; Skills and Labour Market;

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • J2 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.