#8 - Analysis of CQ Researcher Pro/Con discussion

Pro/Con question: Should Congress establish a Federal Robotics Commission?

The thesis of the Pro side: The U.S. Congress should establish a Federal Robotics Commission.

This side is defended by Ryan Calo, Assistant professor of law at the University of Washington.

His argument:

1. A number of foreign governments (Japan, South Korea, and the European Union) recognize that robotics is a transformative technology and have coordinated massive public-private partnerships in robotics and begun formally to develop legal and policy frameworks.  The U.S. is approaching robotics in a much more piecemeal way.  We could end up falling behind the rest of the world with our half-hearted approach to this new technology.
2. A Federal Robotics Commission would be a great way to accrue expertise on robotics to advise the U.S. government in how to approach this new technology.
3. While there might be other ways to accrue expertise on this technology than to create a Robotics Commission, a Federal Commission is the best way to attract the best experts on a particular technology; experts love to work on federal commissions.

Analysis:

The U.S. certainly doesn’t want to fall behind the rest of the world in its handling of an important new technology (in this case, robotics).  But while Calo’s argument supports the idea of the U.S. government developing expertise and investing in research on robotics, Calo hasn’t made a strong case for creating a whole new commission for this purpose.  It still isn’t clear that a Federal Robotics Commission is the best way to develop this expertise.  Federal bureaucracies have a bad reputation for being wasteful and inefficient, so Calo really needed to have done a better job of addressing this potential objection to creating a whole new federal bureaucracy.  He could have argued more forcefully just how potentially dangerous and economically significant robotics is; that might have better defended a large government role.      

#7 - Evaluation of authority and currency of book in post #3

Book: The jobless future, by Stanley Aronowitz and William DiFazio, 2010.

Stanley Aronowitz has taught at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York since 1983, where he is Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Urban Education. He received his B.A. at the New School in 1968 and his Ph.D from the Union Graduate School in 1975. He studies labor, social movements, science and technology, education, social theory and cultural studies and is director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Technology and Work at the Graduate Center.

He is author or editor of twenty-five books including: Against Schooling: For an Education that Matters (2008); Left Turn: Forging a New Political Future (2006); Just Around Corner (2005); How Class Works (2003); The Last Good Job in America (2001); The Knowledge Factory (2000); The Jobless Future (1994, with William DiFazio); and False Promises: The Shaping of American Working Class Consciousness (1973, 1992).

He has published more than two hundred articles and reviews in publications such as Harvard Educational Review, Social Policy, The Nation, and The American Journal of Sociology. Prior to coming to the Graduate Center he taught at the University of California–Irvine and Staten Island Community College (now The College of Staten Island). He has been visiting professor or scholar at University of Wisconsin–Madison, the University of Paris VIII, Lund University (Sweden), and Columbia University. [Information taken from the author's information page on the website of the City University of New York Graduate Center.]

William DiFazio is Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at St. Johns University in New York City.  He has a Ph.D. from the City University of New York.  He teaches and does research in the sociology of poverty, work and technology, urban sociology, and social theory. He is the author of numerous research articles and books, like Ordinary Poverty: A Little Food and Cold Storage. [Information taken from the author's information page on the website of St. John's University.]

Aronowitz is the main author of this book, and his background, professional position, and publications indicate that he is well qualified to write a book primarily about labor.  DiFazio also seems well qualified by his background, professional position, and publications to be co-author of a book on this topic.

This book was published in 2010.  It is about labor and automation, things that can change very rapidly.  So though this book is only six years old, if it is used for a research project about how automation is affecting labor, it should be supplemented by more recently published books and/or scholarly articles.