Digital and technology disruptions have been the forefront priorities of businesses and government institutions alike. There is no question regarding the huge impact on economic benefits as well as in the efficiency and productivity of most of our jobs today. It is no doubt as well that no industry and almost no job is spared from a little to full automation. Somehow someone’s job will be affected, the question of to what extent varies a lot. And so, the question that is left unanswered but begs to be answered not when that time comes where most people are left insignificant but rather NOW. When algorithms and other technological advances take over the jobs of most people, what will happen to them?

Some skeptics dismiss the notion that people with jobs that are easily replaced by new technology will be insignificant and irrelevant. After all, how many major technological changes and advances did mankind have since the industrial era? Were people helpless after the new changes? No, rather they switched from jobs that can easily be done by technology to new jobs that have been formed. Over the past two to three centuries, we have moved from an agricultural society to and industrial and then to a service-dominated economy – from farmers, to factory workers, and then to service workers. True enough, most of the jobs that we have now were not invented five to ten years ago. New and emerging types of jobs are now replacing the old and traditional ones. The expectation is that people will just switch to new ones, again.

However, the problem with this argument lies with the very notion that people can just simply switch to new jobs at this day and age. Cliché it may seem, but the times might be different right now. When the economy demands farmers to become factory workers, what kind of necessary trainings are needed to be hired and efficient in the new job? You certainly don’t need to spend time in school and earn a certificate that you are proficient in factory work. Although different, the job does not require that much of knowledge or cognitive skills – which is the reason why even kids were and are still hired to be factory workers. When people needed to switch from being a factory worker to a supermarket cashier, for example, again what kind of training is demanded from someone? While you need to have some form of training, it doesn’t take up so much of your life time. Weeks to months will be required to do most of the jobs in the service industry, with some (such as for hairdressers or car mechanics) taking a few years. But from the service industry to an information economy, do we expect people to easily switch to jobs that require not only university-level of intelligence but also specialized skills?

There will be a specific sector in any given country that will be irrelevant with no skills and preparations that can equip them for a new dawn of technological change. How do government institutions and businesses prepare for this transition? Whose responsibility is it to make sure that most are still relevant in a new economy and that those who are not can still survive for their day-to-day lives (through, for example, universal basic income or corporate-sponsored support)? While some people can easily switch to new jobs each decade, there are those who just can’t. It is our responsibility as humans to look after those who are neglected by what we call “progress” – while we enjoy its fruits, there are people who pay for its price.

Big data has been the buzz phrase in most businesses nowadays as the switch from owning physical assets to that of owning massive data of consumers becomes a norm. This digital asset, among other things, is used to analyze personal or consumer segment profiles and predict future economic behaviors such as buying preferences.

My personal sentiment regarding big data lies on the ethics on how our data is being used and treated. Some companies even sell data to third parties without the consent of the consumers. But how is this problematic? Among other things, the problem depends on who controls and uses our data.

When for-profit companies use our data to profile us and take advantage of our vulnerabilities or wrongly profile us; then red flags should be raised, and our morality test should be checked. This is strongly highlighted in Cathy O’Neil’s book Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy.

The algorithms behind the analytics are man-made and are therefore still prone to human biases even while deliberately removing obvious ones. Such as the case of profiling people for ability to repay loans. In the traditional way of humans assessing clients, blacks, Latinos and other minorities are favored against. If the algorithm is trained to learn from the bank’s history of approving and rejecting loans, then it also learns and adopts obvious human biases. But even if the racial bias is removed and controlled for in the algorithm, in a certain case, it was replaced by an implicit biased variable such as postcode. If you live in a certain “problem” area then the algorithm can work against you, and people who live in problem areas tend to be people of color and minority backgrounds. This is a societal problem because if you come from a poor neighborhood but have an indomitable entrepreneurial spirit and a high business potential, the algorithm will reject your loan application. Consequently, you tend to miss out on opportunities that can alleviate you from your economic situation. Now multiply this scenario to hundreds and thousands of people who were born and raised in poor neighborhoods.

Big Data Analytics is of course not all bad provided that algorithms are scrutinized and especially if controlled by trusted institutions who use it for the good of all. Bill Gates, for example, supports open and deliberate use of people’s data for healthcare especially public institutions working in the field. However, warning signs are everywhere on how consumer data is treated and so we need to revisit where our ethics are.