The Workforce Dilemma

At some point during our upbringing, many of us heard similar advice from a well-intentioned parent or loved one  — that we should choose a “stable” career and work we can “fall back on” to pay the bills, which can give us the stability that parents so often wish for their children.

But what happens when even work that has long been “safe” becomes increasingly uncertain? In generations past, workers often kept a job for 30 years, advanced through seniority, and used the same skills throughout their careers. Today, the stability of even a “secure” job is deteriorating. Artificial intelligence and automation put at risk a broad range of skills, both cognitive and routine, that can now be performed by computers. McKinsey estimates that nearly half of all job activities could be automated by 2030 and that up to a third of people will need to change occupations. Meanwhile, traditional jobs with defined responsibilities, pay rate, and location are quickly being replaced by contingent work – shorter term, often project based, and centered around a skill or area of expertise.  

How do we replace the economic security and consistency we used to get from our jobs? We need a new approach to work that reflects the kinds of opportunities available to workers today. In our recent Shift Commission report, we laid out a shift away from predictable work to self-generated opportunity. Promising growth jobs that computers cannot do, such as those in lifestyle enhancement or creative fields, are those created through developing and marketing a skill, and then applying it as necessary in different contexts and projects.

Many workers face a quandary: enhancing economic stability requires more self-direction and forging new opportunities through adapting, risk-taking and entrepreneurial thinking. Without economic stability in the first place, however, too few workers take risks to develop new skills.

In our new essay in Craftsmanship Quarterly, we explore this tension and lay out the case for economic stability that enables individual adaptability and entrepreneurialism, in combination with skills and expertise.

In the essay, we conclude:

"Undoubtedly there are many reasons why workers are reluctant to take chances, but it’s also likely that a good number of them would feel bolder if they could afford to experiment. But almost no one connects the dots on this dilemma.

In policy discussions, these conflicting trends—career instability and income volatility—are continually treated as entirely separate and unrelated. Conversations about the future of work emphasize opportunity, training, and skills; meanwhile, the financial stability that people need to explore those opportunities is rarely mentioned.

The clear take-away from all these competing trends is that in tomorrow’s world, taking a risk may be the only safe way to go. Before a sufficient number of people will be willing to take these chances, a lot of groundwork will have to be laid. Among other things, we need a new educational framework that prioritizes adaptability and entrepreneurialism; re-investment in on-the-job training instead of just classroom or online learning; and an updated safety net that gives people the stability, time, and resources to take risks."

Through our Work, Workers and Technology initiative, we will be working alongside communities in the coming months to tackle these questions. Beginning in Phoenix this month—and next month in Detroit and Indianapolis—we are hosting with ASU our first ShiftLabs convenings with local and national leaders to catalyze local solutions to an automating work world. We are also leading new research to understand the perspectives of workers who will be impacted, including their motivations, preferences, expectations and constraints to better opportunity and skills. (More about our work is here). Across our work, we will surface solutions that address the interconnected issues of economic stability, opportunity, and adaptability.