nThere is a constant discussion about AI these days, with most of the conversation focused on whether there is a speculative bubble or whether chip maker Nvidia is really worth $5tn or whether OpenAI will beat its rivals in developing new generations of artificial intelligence. But the vast majority of Americans – like the vast majority of Europeans and Asians – couldn’t care less about those things.
Their bigger concern is whether AI will lead to massive layoffs and create a disastrous job market, especially for young workers. Dario Amodei, CEO of leading AI company Anthropic, fueled those fears when he said that AI could Half of all entry-level white-collar jobs were eliminated Over the next one to five years and unemployment in the US will increase by 10% to 20%. In October, Bernie Sanders, the top Democrat on the Senate Education and Labor Committee, released a report saying AI and automation could Up to 97 million jobs change in America over the next decade.
Such predictions raise concerns that AI will make today’s massive income inequality even worse as already wealthy investors in AI become even richer while millions of workers lose their jobs and perhaps form a new underclass struggling to make ends meet.
one in Recent Panel Discussion I conducted, Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT and winner of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, said there are essentially two paths to developing AI: an anti-labor path and a pro-labor path. He expressed frustration that tech companies were focusing on an anti-labor path – a path that aims to develop AI in ways that maximize automation and minimize job cuts.
in that panel discussion At the City University Graduate Center in New York, Acemoglu said AI “can take very different directions, and the direction we choose is going to have great consequences in terms of labor market impact”. He said today’s AI “craze is really an automation agenda” that is “going to eliminate more and more jobs”.
Acemoglu called for “a different future” with “worker-supportive AI”. In his view, it would be far better if society and government could get tech companies to develop AI in a way that, rather than maximizing layoffs, increases workers’ skills so that employees become more capable and valuable and employers are eager to keep them. Thus, very few jobs will be lost as a result of AI.
Acemoglu said pro-worker AI would be far better for improving productivity, social cohesion and reducing income inequality. However, he acknowledged that pro-worker AI is “not so good for the business models of big tech companies” – their models seek maximum profits and automation.
It will undoubtedly take a lot of pressure from government and society for AI companies to adopt a pro-labor approach. Biden held at the White House discussion with labor leaders About how to make AI less harmful to workers. The Biden administration and various Biden-era agencies adopted Many pro-worker AI policies (For example, to Limit harmful AI surveillance), but his administration never issued recommendations or regulations to advance the future of AI that would minimize layoffs. Perhaps this would have happened during Biden’s second term.
Three days after returning to the White House, Donald Trump – the tech billionaires who helped finance his campaign and inauguration – Biden’s modest efforts canceled To make AI less harmful. Trump essentially gave AI companies the green light to pursue any strategy they want, even if workers and the public are harmed. On Thursday, he issued an executive order aimed at blocking any state laws restricting AI.
“The Trump administration has really changed the direction of the conversation about AI,” said Amanda Ballentine, who until recently was director of the AFL-CIO’s Technology Institute. (The AFL-CIO is the main US labor union.) “I wouldn’t say we’re seeing a great trajectory right now for what AI will mean for workers. We’re living through a live-action experiment as tech companies and employers are trying to figure out how to use this new technology, with many worried that it will be destabilizing and bad for workers.”
It would be great if the way forward for AI could follow the Germany and Scandinavia model of working together with industry, labor and government to develop policies that help business and workers alike. “We are in new territory with AI technology,” said Ballantyne, now a senior fellow at New America, a progressive think tank. “We should take lessons from deindustrialization in the United States, where our weak policy response to the negative effects of free trade left many working people behind. We can and absolutely should use government to encourage the development of pro-worker AI and smart regulations, just as we have done the last time in history.” Ballantine pointed to Franklin Roosevelt’s program that led to the electrification of hundreds of backward rural communities, which helped improve living conditions and promote economic growth.
“Democrats,” Ballentine said, “should make it a core part of their platform, that it is possible to use government to create the kind of economy we want” — in this case, by encouraging tech companies to develop AI in more pro-worker, less destructive ways.
Four decades ago, NYU economics professor Vasily Leontief, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics, envisioned, somewhat playfully, a future with so much automation that just One factory worker will be savedAnd that worker will turn a switch, and all the manufacturing in the world will be completed. Leontief was worried that the factory owners would get all the profits and the workers would be left destitute.
He asked two important questions: “Who will benefit? How will the income be distributed?” Those questions are arguably more relevant today.
With this in mind, the US and other wealthy countries should move quickly to adopt targeted policies that protect workers from the anticipated negative impacts of AI, particularly mass layoffs.
The government should arrange comprehensive efforts to retrain laid-off workers and get them back into the workforce – one option would be to free up community colleges. It would be terrible for those workers – and society – if AI resulted in millions of workers being unemployed for years.
If AI causes mass layoffs, it could mean that millions of workers and families would lose a vital necessity: health coverage. With all the job disruption likely to be caused by AI, we should shut down our system in which workers receive health coverage through their job. Instead we should adopt a system of guaranteed health coverage for all, perhaps in the form of Medicare for All.
As AI takes over more and more of workers’ tasks, employers should move toward a four-day workweek — in which workers continue to receive the same pay — as a way to spread out work, reduce layoffs, and give workers some of the benefits of AI.
some technical officers Called for universal basic income (perhaps $1,000 per month) so everyone could receive a minimum income in the event of massive layoffs. Unfortunately, most UBI proposals would give an inadequate amount, perhaps $12,000 a year, to those people, while giving the same amount to millions of people who are working and don’t need it. In my view, a more generous unemployment insurance system with higher weekly benefits and more weeks of benefits would be better and fairer than a UBI.
All this will require more taxes. As AI makes the very rich even richer — giving them even more money they don’t need and don’t know what to do with — lawmakers should not hesitate to raise taxes on the ultra-rich to finance a better safety net that includes universal health coverage, stronger retraining, and expanded unemployment insurance.
Last but not least, we must ensure that workers have a voice in developing AI so that it is not focused exclusively on helping tech companies maximize profits, automation, and layoffs. Biden was very serious about giving workers a voice in shaping AI, but Trump has no interest in that idea. The billionaires and tech bros who have their ear (and are helping finance their golden ballroom) hate labor unions and are not eager to give workers an effective voice.
The bottom line is that once again a bottom-up movement is needed, this time to put pressure on lawmakers and tech companies to require employees to develop AI and build a stronger safety net.
-
Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author who focuses on labor and the workplace as well as economic and legal issues
