[AK View] Amazon's Massive Workforce Reduction Plan and the Future of Labor

Robots and Automation to Replace 500,000 Logistics Jobs
Retraining Promised, but Mass Unemployment Seems Inevitable
Urgent Need for Detailed Policies to Address Labor Market Crisis

A report by The New York Times that Amazon plans to replace over 500,000 jobs in the United States alone with robots and automation software has sent shockwaves around the world. The impact is even greater because Amazon expanded its workforce to 1.2 million employees during the pandemic, when contactless transactions surged. The logistics platform, which grew through the power of a massive workforce, is now turning to technology to implement large-scale staff reductions. The workplace may seem like a utopia without strikes or industrial accidents, but unfortunately, there are no workers there. Anxiety in the labor market caused by technological advancement is growing rapidly.

Amazon has been preparing automated logistics warehouses for a long time. It began with the acquisition of a robotics company called Kiva in 2012. Today, Amazon's warehouses feature transport devices that move by recognizing barcodes on the floor, robots that instantly sort items by size and weight, and an algorithmic control tower that orchestrates all these devices in real time.

Already, more than 1 million robots have been deployed in Amazon warehouses worldwide. Newly built warehouses are now so automated that they require almost no manual labor. Executives are confident that even if product sales double, there will be no need to increase the workforce. Including natural attrition, it is projected that by 2027, 160,000 jobs, and by 2033, up to 600,000 jobs could be replaced by machines.

Such changes are typically presented under the banner of "efficient innovation." The logic is that if machines take over simple, repetitive, or physically demanding work, the remaining employees can focus on more creative tasks or move into new roles. But can every worker quickly transition to future-oriented jobs, especially when there is a lack of sufficient time and policy support? Experts point out that Amazon's transformation could have a greater impact than the Industrial Revolution, and that the newly created high-paying jobs are likely to benefit only a select few. In reality, automation is almost certain to lead to a reduction in employment.

No matter how positively it is framed, the core issue of "large-scale workforce reduction" cannot be avoided. Some members of Amazon's strategy team, aware of the social controversy, reportedly considered using neutral or positive-sounding terms such as "advanced technology" or "co-bot" instead of "automation" or "robot." As public scrutiny over corporate social responsibility intensified, Amazon retreated, stating that it had not mandated the use of specific terminology.

Just days after reports of workforce cuts emerged, Amazon released a press statement that appeared to be a response to the controversy. It detailed its workforce retraining programs. The company announced that hundreds of thousands of employees are participating in training for new jobs involving computers, artificial intelligence (AI), and robotics, and that it will support more than 500,000 employees in acquiring new skills by 2030. However, it remains questionable whether such a large-scale job transition program can keep pace with the number and speed of disappearing jobs. Can hundreds of thousands of workers who previously performed simple, repetitive tasks really transform into highly skilled technical personnel in a short period? Paradoxically, these retraining programs only highlight the grim outlook that equal opportunities for employment may not be available to everyone.

It is a historical fact that policymakers who can look further ahead than capitalists seeking to maximize profits through technological advancement are rare. Regardless of the country, it is regrettable that there are no comprehensive policies to recognize and prepare for the labor crisis of "mass unemployment due to automation" on a macro level. As I have repeatedly stated in the "Akyeong's Window" column, the same applies to South Korea. Before discussing rosy labor policies such as basic income or a 4.5-day workweek, it is time to prepare more concrete and detailed countermeasures.