New technology will not leave you unemployed

Towards the late 18th century, as new technologies emerged in textile and related industries, there was a growing fear about potential mass unemployment (which, indeed, was a valid concern). 

Textile workers in parts of England took it upon themselves to sneak into factories late at night and destroy all machines that they were afraid were putting them out of work. They opposed progress because they were afraid it would make them worse off.

Throughout history, we seem to have a complex relationship with technology. On one hand, we stretch our arms open to accept the proliferation of it and often get swooned by its magic. 

On the other hand, we are also mistrustful of tech progress, fearful of what effect something new may have on our lives. This dichotomy is growing evident in the apprehension surrounding the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) and, to a lesser extent, the AI revolution.

Technological progress leads to the loss of jobs – as conventional wisdom goes. And so, when I look around, my friends are concerned, my colleagues are worried, and my students are terrified that by the time they graduate, what they are training for may have been completely automated. Everyone is worried that the likes of ChatGPT will make them redundant, yet no one seems to be able to stop using it.

The interesting thing is that these anxieties may well be grounded in reality. By the time many young adults graduate from schools and universities, the jobs they aspire to may no longer exist. This is true not only in Bangladesh, but globally. Despite this reality, I still refuse to concede that technological advancement leads to making the human workforce irrelevant.

Here is a simple thought experiment: When we trace the evolution of technology over time, a prevalent pattern emerges – a consistent upward trend. As time progresses, our utilisation of technology has not only increased but has also embraced advancements. 

Similarly, examining the historical trajectory of employment reveals a parallel growth trend. Over the decades, the workforce has expanded steadily. As an economist, I must add that this is a grossly oversimplified way of analysing the situation, but it serves the purpose of this article.

So, what exactly is going on here? If better technology leads to the loss of jobs, why are we hiring more people today than we were in 1950 or in 1750 or in 1550?

Our struggle to predict the effect of technology

It is always difficult to anticipate the role that technology will play in growth and development. In fact, the first economists did not even consider technology as being of any importance. 

David Ricardo, for example, in his technology-neutral analyses, predicted that population growth would outstrip production growth, leading to mass starvation and famine. Two hundred years later, we are still here, eating more than ever.

Some 100 years after Ricardo, Bertrand Russell argued that technology twice as good should mean that workers work for only half as long, freeing up the rest of the day for family, leisure, and other idyllic, recreational activities. Well, here we are in 2024, with profoundly better technology than what Russell could have ever envisioned, still working longer hours than ever.

Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate economist, proclaimed 25 years ago that the role of the internet in human progress would be no greater than the impact of the fax machine. Today, Krugman is very actively involved in debates, discussions, and discourse on many online platforms.

The point being made is this: we do not know how technology will influence the future, how societies will adapt to it, or what new avenues will appear. How will human societies evolve during the 4IR? We do not know. But we do know one thing – we know it from historical records, and we know it from our understanding of human nature: there will be no mass-scale unemployment caused by it.

Humans are meant to thrive

The concern about the textile workers in England in the 18th century was real, and their sabotaging machines in factories at night was out of fear that looked to harm their livelihoods.

But here is something that these people, the Luddites, could not have foreseen but something we should foresee today, with regards to the 4IR— the human appetite is unending.

Even the wealthiest people two centuries ago may have had not more than ten outfits. Why? Because clothes were expensive, took a long time to produce, and the expertise to manufacture clothes lay with a few artisan families or guilds. 

What happened when newer technologies were introduced in the industry? In the long run, manufacturing became cheaper and easier, prices fell, supply rose, and today, I have considerably more (and better quality) clothes in my closet than the royalty from two centuries ago.

And globally, do we hire more people in the garments and textile industry today than we did during the time of the Luddites? Yes, we do. The Luddites were not technically wrong; they were just too focused on the short run.

If the 4IR enhances our capabilities so much that one person will be able to do the work of five, that does not mean four people will be made unemployed. Let us not be alarmists. 

When one person can do the work of five, he will not earn five times more. He may earn twice as much, or thrice as much. That means that the average cost of these services will fall. Which in turn means that the demand for these services will rise. And that leads to more job opportunities. 

It may not be the work you have always dreamt of having. In fact, in all likelihood, you will be doing a job that did not exist last year. But it will be work, and it will pay you a salary that matches your skills.

What's the takeaway?

I have been a teacher in some capacity for more than 15 years. If I say that even today, half my students struggle to use the appropriate keywords to perform a simple Google search, I will not be lying. 

I am not just talking about Bangladesh; I have teaching experience in three countries. It is the same everywhere. Someone will always have to tell the AI what to do, and the demand for these individuals —to run, operate, maintain, repair, and even improve the new technology— will progressively rise.

Adobe Photoshop has not made graphics designers obsolete. If anything, every small company today wants a professionally designed logo – the industry is thriving. More graphics designers are gainfully employed today than ever before.

Similarly, calculators have not made mathematicians obsolete – in fact, by speeding up the process, we are doing more maths today than we were during the days of the abacus. The only catch is that you have to know how to use a calculator. You cannot remain an abacus loyalist and refuse to learn. Technology is just for easing up our work; from the knowledge of history, I see no future telling me otherwise.