Great News From McKinsey: Robots Will Take 800 Million Jobs Worldwide By 2030

Stories about robots taking over from humans have become prevalent. Recently we’ve written about a new Manhattan Shake Shack replacing human cashiers with robots, killer robots (a.k.a. lethal autonomous weapons systems), a Californian real estate company replacing commission-based human agents with robots, a cocaine workshop in Brazil with robots packing 150,000 baggies a day and the first robot to be awarded citizenship which hopes for “harmony with humans”. No chance.

In June, we discussed a McKinsey & Co. report which stated that US manufacturing could be poised for a recovery and not because of Trump’s policies. Indeed, McKinsey’s rationale was based on automation weakening the case for labour arbitrage. James Manyika, McKinsey Global Institute director, commented.

“Even if we rebuild factories here and you build plants here, they’re just not going to employ thousands of people -- that just doesn’t happen. Find a factory anywhere in the world built in the last 5 years -- not many people work there.”

Pressing home the bad news for humans everywhere, both in developed and emerging nations. McKinsey has published a new report with truly dire conclusions, as Bloomberg reports.

As many as 800 million workers worldwide may lose their jobs to robots and automation by 2030, equivalent to more than a fifth of today’s global labor force. That’s according to a new report covering 46 nations and more than 800 occupations by the research arm of McKinsey & Co.

The consulting company said Wednesday that both developed and emerging countries will be impacted. Machine operators, fast-food workers and back-office employees are among those who will be most affected if automation spreads quickly through the workplace.

This fits with a Bloomberg chart we’ve used before showing industries most at risk to automation.

There is some "moderately" good news, if the robotic takeover is “less rapid” than McKinsey is currently forecasting.

some 400 million workers could still find themselves displaced by automation and would need to find new jobs over the next 13 years, the McKinsey Global Institute study found.

If you’re one of the 800 million, or maybe 400 million, displaced workers, don’t despair if you like gardening or looking after the elderly. Bloomberg continues.

The good news for those displaced is that there will be jobs for them to transition into, although in many cases they’re going to have to learn new skills to do the work. Those jobs will include health-care providers for aging populations, technology specialists and even gardeners, according to the report.

“We’re all going to have to change and learn how to do new things over time,” Michael Chui, a San Francisco-based partner at the institute, said in an interview.

Somehow, we doubt that the optimistic Mr. Chui is referring to himself, although you never know. We remember working for a high-profile British merchant bank in the 1990s, let’s just call it S.G. Warburg, which, after decades of success had lost its way slightly. The Chairman – often referred to as the “Fat Controller” by his underlings - invited the bank’s leading shareholders to dinner. We’re paraphrasing, but his message was “Don’t worry, we’ve got McKinsey coming in.” Hearing that, the major shareholders decided that the “game was up” and the bank lost its independence afterwards. Meanwhile, after another robot report from McKinsey, we like to find solace in previous predictions of labour market demise.

"We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come—namely, technological unemployment" - Keynes, 1930
 
“Labor will become less and less important..More and more workers will be replaced by machines. I do not see that new industries can employ everybody who wants a job” -Leontief, 1952

Would You Pay $1,000 For Each Equity Research Piece You Read? Autonomous Research Thinks You Will

Would you pay $1,000 for each piece of equity research you read throughout the day?  How about $5,000 for an industry piece? 

Well, Autonomous Research, which was founded in 2009 by former Merrill Lynch analysts, is really hoping you"ll agree that those are appropriate clearing prices for their daily market wisdom.  According to Bloomberg, as equity research providers in the Europe continue to figure out how exactly to best comply with upcoming MiFID II rules, Autonomous thinks that a piecemeal approach will allow them to reach smaller funds that lack the resources to purchase more expensive annual contracts for bulge bracket research.

Autonomous Research LLP is offering a pay-as-you-go model for its European equity product in the run-up to the MiFID II rules, which are set to shake up the way money managers pay for analyst reports, people with knowledge of the matter said.

The prices for the new service start at $1,000 for a single stock report and climb to $5,000 for high-end industry research, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private. Autonomous Research, which specializes in analysis of financial companies, also charges a single user $5,000 for access to its daily round-up of news and analysis, with the price per client falling as more sign up, the people said.

“We have been transparent with our clients on pricing for research since inception eight years ago,” said Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Firkins. “We have a clear and transparent pricing menu which we discuss proactively with existing and prospective clients.”

Of course, as we recently pointed out, bigger firms like Barclays have opted for larger 1x, all-you-can-eat packages priced at the bargain basement rate of just $455,000 per year...it"s hard to imagine how hedgies won"t be knocking down their doors to gain access.

The firm is proposing three levels of service -- bronze, silver and gold -- with the premium package comprising unlimited reports, field trips and “occasional” one-on-one meetings with analysts and corporate executives, according to a pricing document seen by Bloomberg News. At the bottom end of the scale, read-only access to European research will start at 30,000 pounds.

At Barclays, even if clients stump up 350,000 pounds for the gold “trans-Atlantic” package, they could still end up spending more. “Bespoke” analyst work and corporate access is priced separately, according to the document. Field trips, industry events and company management meetings are also at the bank’s discretion, and analyst one-on-ones are “capped,” it shows.

Prices in the document may not apply to all clients, have been in flux and could still be subject to change, a person familiar with the process said, asking not to be identified discussing the matter. A Barclays spokesman declined to comment.

Banks are scrambling as they enter the last six months before the decades-old practice of sending out free analyst reports as a courtesy and marketing strategy comes to an end. The European Union’s MiFID II regulations, enforced from Jan. 3, require money managers to separate the trading commissions they pay from investment-research fees. This means banks in turn have to be more transparent, providing specific charges for their analysts’ time and work in order to comply.

Of course, the logical takeaway from these exorbitant offering prices, if they hold, is that institutional clients will ultimately be forced to consolidate their vendors...translation, so long to the small independent research shops.  Meanwhile, investment banks will be forced to control costs by trying to focus on writing reports that people actually read (vs. the 1% hit rate they have today).  All of which means that those shrinking analysts pools are about to completely collapse.

In fact, as McKinsey recently noted, up to 30% of research analysts could be at risk of losing their cushy banking jobs as result of Europe"s new regulations.

Europe’s impending ban on free research will cost hundreds of analysts their jobs with banks set to cut about $1.2 billion of investment on the area, according to a report by McKinsey & Co.

The consultancy estimates the $4 billion that the top-10 sell-side banks currently spend on research annually is likely to fall by 30 percent as clients become pickier about what they pay for, McKinsey Partner Roger Rudisuli said in an interview. Investment banks’ cash equity research headcount has fallen 12 percent to 3,900 since 2011 compared with as much as 40 percent in sales and trading, leaving the area facing “big cuts” to catch up, he said.

“Two to three global banking players will preserve their status in the new era, winning the execution arms race and dominating trading in equities around the globe,” McKinsey said in a report Wednesday, which Rudisuli helped write. “Over the coming five years, banks will need to make hard choices and play to their strengths. Not only will the top ranks be thinned out, there will be shakeouts in regional markets.”

Of course, as we"ve said before, almost any amount of money seems, at least to us, to be too much to have the same people give you the same advice over and over again, namely "buy more stocks, faster."

Why Wage Growth Will Remain Elusive

Authored by Lance Roberts of Real Investment Advice,

Just recently, Bloomberg ran a fascinating article discussing a new study from the McKinsey Institute.

“American manufacturing could be poised to rebound as technological disruption shakes up global production chains, but that will offer little relief to displaced factory workers, according to new research by the McKinsey Global Institute.

Now, McKinsey sees conditions changing in a way that could favor U.S. producers: automation is weakening the case for labor arbitrage as wages rise in emerging market economies and developing market residents are coalescing into a new consumer class, among other factors.

While the U.S. could seize on those manufacturing growth opportunities, especially if the government and companies invest to make production more competitive, there are catches. Importantly, production might bounce back without bringing a lot of jobs in tow.

‘Even if we rebuild factories here and you build plants here, they’re just not going to employ thousands of people — that just doesn’t happen,’ said report co-author and McKinsey Global Institute Director James Manyika. ‘Find a factory anywhere in the world built in the last 5 years — not many people work there.’”

McKinsey is absolutely correct. While the President recently started a discussion on “Buy American,” most of the root belief in the efficacy of tax cuts, tax reform, and nationalism is rooted in the history of “Reagan-omics.”

The thing most overlooked by the majority of economists, politicians, and commentators, is the stark difference in the underlying economic and monetary fundamentals which provided the massive tailwind Reagan’s policies that simply don’t exist currently. As my partner, Michael Lebowitz, illustrated previously:

“Many investors are suddenly comparing Trump’s economic policy proposals to those of Ronald Reagan. For those that deem that bullish, we remind you that the economic environment and potential growth of 1982 was vastly different than it is today.  Consider the following table:’”

The issue of working harder, and earning less, continues to plague the economic minds driving both monetary and fiscal policy. Since the turn of the century, there has been a steady erosion of the growth rate in compensation as advancements in technology has limited the ability for workers to demand higher wages.

Whether it has been McDonald’s installing kiosks to replace cashiers or manufacturing companies automating assembly line jobs, the decision simply comes down to which is more cost-effective to increase bottom-line profitability. The answer is always – automation. This is shown in the chart below from McKinsey which shows which industries are the most susceptible to automation.

This continuing drive for profitability by reducing the cost of labor through increased productivity also explains the other conundrum of the “hidden unemployment.”

Businesses remain keenly focused on the bottom line, particularly as payroll and benefit costs continue to climb each year, as aggregate end demand drags. However, if businesses can increase productivity without increasing employment those net gains flow directly to the bottom line. This attitude, of course, not only stifles the need for employment but also lowers wage requirements as the available labor pool competes for fewer jobs.

Skills Lacking

Bloomberg ran a second article recently discussing the second problem which is further suppressing wage growth – a lack of requisite skill sets. To wit:

“A growing number of companies are finding it difficult to recruit skilled workers, which threatens to curtail profits and growth, according to a quarterly survey conducted by the Washington-based National Association for Business Economics.

The results of NABE’s July Business Conditions Survey published on Monday showed that 34 percent of respondents have had trouble hiring skilled employees over the last three months, up from 27 percent in January. The Washington-based association polled 101 panelists, who are economists from companies and industry associations.

In response, companies are sponsoring foreign workers, expanding their search and hiring more independent contractors, according to the survey. They’re also boosting automation, stepping up internal training and in some cases improving pay, Jankowski said.

Perhaps at least partially as a result, more than a third of respondents cited labor costs as having the largest negative impact on their profits so far this year.”

In a nutshell, there is the entirety of the problem and the reason why wage growth remains nascent. Mike Shedlock summed up what is going on, stating:

• It’s not just salaries. Obamacare and benefits are hurting many companies.


• Cheap money from the Fed keeps zombie companies alive.


• Cheap money from the Fed induced (and still does) over-expansion fast of food restaurants and retail stores of all sorts.


• Workers really are not worth benefit costs plus an extra 3% so companies seek to automate.


• Are McDonald’s workers worth $15? Please be serious.


• Amazon and online shopping are weakening retail profits.

Increasing productivity, lowering costs and increasing profit margins. In a slow growth economy, this has become the clarion call to corporate CEO’s. This is why, as shown on Tuesday, that while earnings per share have exploded, actual revenue growth remains feeble.

Working more and earning less. That is struggle faced by the average American today as each dollar buys less than it did before. Statistically, the economy may be recovering. However, for the average American it is a far more depressing reality. Capacity utilization still remains far weaker than at the peak of the last economic cycle and employment relative to the total working age population remains mired at lows. These components all feed back into the mental and financial state of the consumer which, in turn, impacts businesses future investment and hiring decisions – or lack thereof.

The real story here is that there is little hope for an already struggling middle class to gain any ground in an economic climate that continues to stack the cards against them.

But who knows, maybe someone will develop an “app” for that.

Factories May Be Coming Back To The U.S., But The Jobs Aren't: McKinsey

Trump effectively owes his election to the promise of bringing factories and manufacturing jobs back to the United States.  His relentless, targeted attacks against the "Big 3" U.S. auto manufacturers for outsourcing jobs to Mexico was undoubtedly a key reason that he was able to shock the world and win Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania...an accomplishment which has eluded Republicans since Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately, while factories may once again be making a comeback in the United States, after chasing low wages all around the globe for decades, they"re unlikely to bring the jobs with them.  As a new study from McKinsey highlights, if a new factory opens up in the United States you can bet it"s only because most of the jobs that used to be performed by humans have since been automated.  Per Bloomberg:

American manufacturing could be poised to rebound as technological disruption shakes up global production chains, but that will offer little relief to displaced factory workers, according to new research by the McKinsey Global Institute.

Now, McKinsey sees conditions changing in a way that could favor U.S. producers: automation is weakening the case for labor arbitrage as wages rise in emerging market economies and developing market residents are coalescing into a new consumer class, among other factors.

While the U.S. could seize on those manufacturing growth opportunities, especially if the government and companies invest to make production more competitive, there are catches. Importantly, production might bounce back without bringing a lot of jobs in tow.

“Even if we rebuild factories here and you build plants here, they’re just not going to employ thousands of people -- that just doesn’t happen,” said report co-author and McKinsey Global Institute Director James Manyika. “Find a factory anywhere in the world built in the last 5 years -- not many people work there.”

Not surprisingly, the biggest beneficiary of the decimation of the America"s manufacturing base has been China...which also means they have the most to lose as those jobs get automated.

Looking at the likelihood of automation by industry, McKinsey finds that factory employment ranks near the top of the list -- behind accommodation and food services and just ahead of agriculture. Investment in re-training could help employees who are displaced, Manyika said, but it won’t happen overnight.

"It’s a bit of a heavy lift -- in the skilling, the investment in the right places, the right skills -- it’s not going to happen by itself."

Of course, this wouldn"t be the first time that economists had prematurely predicted the demise of labor markets due to technological advances:

"We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come—namely, technological unemployment" - Keynes, 1930

“Labor will become less and less important. . . More and more workers will be replaced by machines. I do not see that new industries can employ everybody who wants a job” - Leontief, 1952