Connect with us

Business

Column: Does AI mean the four-day workweek — and its happy companion, the three-day weekend — is almost here?

Published

on

Column: Does AI mean the four-day workweek — and its happy companion, the three-day weekend — is almost here?

I’d prefer to work 4 days every week as an alternative of 5. Wouldn’t you?

I’d take Fridays off. The best way I think about it, it’d be just some years from now. A robotic in a butler’s uniform would serve us drinks within the yard on what was once simply one other workday. I’d toss a ball round with the children whereas ChatGPT did their homework for them.

Who says the world goes to hell and the longer term is bleak? Synthetic intelligence, superior robotics and job automation maintain out the hope of much less work, extra leisure and lengthy weekends each weekend.

Opinion Columnist

Nicholas Goldberg

Advertisement

Nicholas Goldberg served 11 years as editor of the editorial web page and is a former editor of the Op-Ed web page and Sunday Opinion part.

That’s the view, anyway, of Christopher Pissarides, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics and believes that due to AI and automation, society “might transfer to a four-day week simply.”

He mentioned it in an article that appeared within the L.A. Occasions final week.

Advertisement

“They might take away a whole lot of boring issues that we do at work … after which go away solely the fascinating stuff to human beings,” he added.

Pissarides has written that automation will get a “unhealthy rap” and that we should always “embrace AI and automation with out hesitation” whereas serving to employees make the transition to the brand new economic system.

It’d be nice if he’s proper that productiveness positive aspects and will increase in effectivity shall be reinvested, spurring new improvements, creating new jobs and industries, and driving financial development as older, much less productive jobs are changed with “extra superior occupations” and all of us get Fridays off with no lower in pay.

However I’m skeptical that it’ll occur simply.

I understand it’s presumptuous of me to query the optimism of a Nobel Prize winner, particularly provided that I didn’t achieve this good in “Intro to Economics” 45 years in the past.

Advertisement

However, with all due respect, rely me amongst those that ponder whether the monetary advantages of automation will actually be put to make use of bettering employees’ well-being — or whether or not they’ll simply feed greater income for shareholders and heftier bonuses for executives, thereby exacerbating earnings inequality.

Rely me amongst those that fear that employers will work arduous to seize many of the financial savings for themselves until society forces them to not.

Automation, of 1 kind or one other, is as outdated as people are, and worry of shedding jobs to machines goes again not less than to the textile mills of the Industrial Revolution. Many people discovered in class concerning the Luddites, a secret group of disaffected early nineteenth century English mill employees who went round destroying automated looms and different newfangled equipment they feared would eradicate their jobs or worsen labor situations.

As of late automation is shifting quicker than ever. A Goldman Sachs report launched final month mentioned 300 million jobs worldwide could possibly be “impacted” or “disrupted” due to generative AI alone. A report by the McKinsey World Institute decided that as much as half the roles individuals do on the earth might theoretically be automated.

Already, salespeople are disappearing at my native Ceremony-Support due to self-service checkout machines. Parking storage attendants can hardly be discovered due to computerized gates, ticket-dispensing machines and self-paying kiosks. At airports, boarding passes are disbursed by machines. Baggage handlers are being displaced by robots, immigration officers by facial recognition know-how.

Advertisement

And do we expect these employees are all off having fun with three-day weekends?

With the extraordinary improvements in AI, automation could quickly transfer past blue-collar and less-skilled employees, more and more affecting so-called “data employees” with school educations. Who’s in danger? Suppose software program engineers, tax preparers, copy editors and paralegals. For starters.

Many economists share Pissarides’ optimistic view. They observe that, traditionally, when automation has eradicated jobs, new ones offset the losses. Productiveness positive aspects drive down costs, which drives up spending and creates jobs. And innovation itself requires employees: Though we not make use of blacksmiths, we’ve received auto mechanics, photo voltaic panel installers and airline pilots.

One Massachusetts Institute of Expertise examine discovered that greater than 60% of jobs within the U.S. in 2018 hadn’t been invented in 1940.

Moreover, robots can do jobs which can be undesirable or extremely harmful or require superhuman energy and stamina. In lots of instances, robots are quicker, stronger, extra correct and extra environment friendly than individuals.

Advertisement

So there are undoubtedly advantages to automation. However the problem is to make sure they’re unfold round.

MIT economist Daron Acemoglu says that over the past 4 many years, jobs misplaced to automation have not been changed by an equal variety of new ones. Because the late Eighties, he says, automation has elevated earnings inequality somewhat than elevating all boats.

The actual beneficiaries of automation throughout that interval? Firms, their house owners and in some instances employees with very excessive ability ranges, particularly these with postgraduate levels.

“The case that employees will profit from mass-scale automation is fairly weak,” Acemoglu instructed me. “The proof signifies that the productiveness positive aspects from automation of the final 4 many years have been largely captured by corporations and managers.”

Now I’m not suggesting we should always — or might — cease innovation or halt progress.

Advertisement

However to mitigate the large disruption, the transition can’t be left solely to the caprice of employers. Automation’s advantages should not merely be dispatched straight into the pockets of the Jeff Bezoses and Elon Musks of the world.

Pissarides urges the federal government to supply earnings and job-transition help to employees.

Harry J. Holzer, a public coverage professor at Georgetown College, requires tax incentives and subsidies for “good job” creation. Okay-12 training, he says, needs to be retooled to organize twenty first century employees with the communication expertise, essential considering skills, creativity and logic that shall be priceless and marketable within the new economic system.

Too typically in historical past, society has left employees to fend for themselves in instances of dramatic financial change. Is authorities dedicated, this time, to making sure it doesn’t occur once more?

Like everybody else, I’m anticipating my four-day workweek.

Advertisement

However I don’t child myself that it’ll occur by itself due to the generosity of the modern-day mill house owners. It’ll take a struggle.

@Nick_Goldberg

Advertisement

Business

Dominic Ng: Philanthropist banker, inclusion practitioner

Published

on

Dominic Ng: Philanthropist banker, inclusion practitioner

The year 2023 was especially cruel to regional banks in California. Repeated interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve exposed the poor bets and hubris of regional highfliers like Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic. Those banks capsized, which sparked bank runs, which wiped shareholders out.

One regional bank, however, smoothly sailed on: East West Bank, helmed for more than 30 years by Dominic Ng, who champions the durable power of steady growth. “We’re prudent and cautious, but very entrepreneurial,” he said from his office at East West headquarters in Pasadena. “The way you win in banking is not through shortcuts. It’s a long game.”

‘His leadership has transformed the bank, transformed philanthropy and what business leadership looks like in L.A.’

— Elise Buik, United Way of Greater Los Angeles’ chief executive

Advertisement

The result has been accolades: No. 1 best-performing bank in its size category last year from S&P Global Market Intelligence and No. 1 performing bank in 2023 by trade publication Bank Director. The diversity of its board of directors — Latino, Asian, Black, female and LGBTQ+ all represented — has also won acclaim.

Steady profits enabled East West to become one of Los Angeles’ top civic benefactors. Ng has been especially active with the United Way of Greater Los Angeles for more than 25 years and is credited with championing a strategic change in direction to more effectively serve the city’s desperately poor, while persuading more of the city’s richest residents to pitch in.

Discover the changemakers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you The Money, a collection of bankers, political bundlers, philanthropists and others whose deep pockets give them their juice. Come back each Sunday for another installment.

Advertisement

“His leadership has transformed the bank, transformed philanthropy and what business leadership looks like in L.A.,” said Elise Buik, the United Way chapter’s chief executive.

Born to Chinese parents in Hong Kong in 1959, the youngest of six children, Ng has been chief executive of East West Bank since 1992 and expanded on the bank’s original mission of financing Chinese immigrants who in the 1970s found it difficult to qualify for loans through the usual channels. It’s now the largest publicly traded independent bank based in Southern California, serving an economically and ethnically diverse clientele. On the world stage, Ng serves as co-chair of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Advisory Council.

Ng, 65, worries about the future of philanthropy in Los Angeles. He longs for the “good old days” when business chiefs didn’t think twice about pitching in to help the city’s less fortunate.

Dominic Ng

“Today, the pressure is on for [immediate] return to shareholders,” and people running companies have to respond to shareholders who seem to “care less every year” about civic responsibility.

More young, monied tech and finance hotshots would do well to take some cues from business leaders like Ng.

Advertisement

More from L.A. Influential

Continue Reading

Business

Mark Suster: The face of L.A. venture capital

Published

on

Mark Suster: The face of L.A. venture capital

Mark Suster, photographed at the Los Angeles Times in El Segundo on Sept. 8.

Cancer-fighting robots. AI-powered baby monitors. The future of American shipbuilding.

These are the kinds of startup ideas that get Mark Suster out of bed in the morning, into his Tesla, and down to the Santa Monica offices of Upfront, the venture capital firm he joined 16 years ago.

“There’s that old saying — the future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed,” Suster said. “My job lets me see where the world’s going five years before the general population.”

Advertisement
L.A. Influential

Discover the changemakers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you The Money, a collection of bankers, political bundlers, philanthropists and others whose deep pockets give them their juice. Come back each Sunday for another installment.

But Suster, 56, didn’t become the face of the L.A. venture capital scene thanks to his day-to-day investing. He got there by throwing a party called the Upfront Summit.

Every year, Suster’s splashy tech conference takes over an iconic L.A. location. One year, it’s at the Rose Bowl. Another year, it’s at a retreat center high in the Santa Monica Mountains. There are zip lines, hot air balloons, and, among the talks with tech founders about software and product development, fireside chats with celebrities, politicians and authors (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Novak Djokovic graced the stage this year).

The razzle-dazzle is part of the draw, and Suster clearly relishes his role as emcee (“I was a theater kid — I still love going to the theater,” he said.)

Advertisement

‘My job lets me see where the world’s going five years before the general population.’

— Mark Suster

But the real appeal comes down to cash. Suster’s strategic move was to invite not just venture capital investors, but the people who invest in venture capital investors. Called limited partners, these are the managers of pensions, sovereign wealth funds and other giant pools of money that want to tap into the tech market. By making sure they’re on the guest list, Suster has made the summit one of the easiest places in America for fellow venture capitalists to raise a new fund.

Mark Suster

The summit loses Upfront money. When Suster started it in 2012, it cost around $300,000. In 2022, costs hit $2.3 million, Suster said, with a handful of sponsors chipping in to cut the losses. But throwing the premiere professional party in California comes with intangible benefits, like bringing in deals that would otherwise leave out Upfront and other L.A. funds and founders.

Advertisement

The 2024 party was a little scaled back, now that higher interest rates have throttled the fire hose of money that went into venture capital during the last decade. But Suster says that he welcomes the less frothy environment. “I’m having a lot more fun now,” he said, investing in founders “looking to build real businesses.”

More from L.A. Influential

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Steve Ballmer: NBA owner in search of a miracle

Published

on

Steve Ballmer: NBA owner in search of a miracle

He sits in a conspicuous baseline seat, where he cheers like nobody’s watching.

The large balding man in long sleeves roars with every splashed basket, gestures with every scintillating pass, face reddening, arms flailing, celebrating so hard he once ripped a hole in his dress shirt.

He could be any die-hard Clippers fan, with one exception.

He owns the team.

Steve Ballmer is the perfect symbol of the power of Hollywood hope, the strength of California dreaming and the resilience of those who come here searching for a miracle.

Advertisement

Discover the changemakers who are shaping every cultural corner of Los Angeles. This week we bring you The Money, a collection of bankers, political bundlers, philanthropists and others whose deep pockets give them their juice. Come back each Sunday for another installment.

Ranking eighth on the Forbes 500 list with an estimated net worth north of $120 billion, Ballmer could afford to buy any sports team in any league.

He chose to buy the Clippers, spending $2 billion in 2014 for a perennial loser and one of five teams to never reach the NBA Finals.

Advertisement

“A team comes up for sale in a city I love that’s near me?” said Ballmer, 68, a former Microsoft executive who lives in Washington state. “You say, ‘OK, but it’s the Clippers,’ and my theory is, you can do anything if you put your mind to it.”

As the richest owner in North American professional sports, he had the wealth and influence to move the bedraggled franchise to a city far away from the big brother Lakers, perhaps even into his adopted hometown of Seattle.

‘It was clear to me, we had to have our own home, our own identity.’

— Clippers owner Steve Ballmer

Advertisement

Yet he doubled down and not only kept the Clippers in town but spent another $2 billion to build his own arena: the glitzy Intuit Dome, which is scheduled to open in October in Inglewood.

“It was clear to me, we had to have our own home, our own identity,” Ballmer said.

Cynics would describe his ownership of the Clippers as charity work, but his real philanthropy has had an even larger impact in the region, with his Ballmer Group investing hundreds of millions of dollars in everything from inner-city businesses to the renovation of 500 Clipper Community Courts in diverse pockets of the city.

Steven Ballmer

“Impacting kids is the kind of thing that pulls at my heart,” Ballmer said. “A fan will tell me that he drove past a Clipper court and I’ll think, that’s really, really, really cool.”

Ballmer is accessible, generous and, most of all, the head cheerleader for a drowned-out swath of a Lakers-owned city.

Advertisement

“I love our die-hard fans,” he said. “I love the culture of c’mon, we have a chip on our shoulder, we’ve got something to prove, we’ve never done it before, c’mon!”

It is a Thursday afternoon early in the 2023-24 NBA season and Steve Ballmer is shouting into the phone, because of course he is, the sound of undying faith, the voice of a true believer, c’mon!

More from L.A. Influential

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending