Is AI the route to joblessness or joyfulness? Technological de-employment is not a new phenomenon, though this time AI is entering cognitive and not only blue-collar work
Back in 1928, John Maynard Keynes spoke of the “economic possibilities of our grandchildren”. Industrial progress, he said, was a “soiled creed, black with coal dust and gunpowder”; yet he proposed that if capital equipment continued to grow at 2% a year and technical efficiency at 1%, “the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is today.” He concluded thus that the “economic problem” — the problem of having to meet basic necessities — “would be solved… within a hundred years.” In this state of “economic bliss”, 15 hours of work a week would suffice, that too because “we have been trained too long to strive and not enjoy”. Beyond that, the “age of leisure” would be a time, in his biographer’s words, “when the spontaneous, joyful attitude to life now confined to artists and free spirits was diffused throughout society as a whole.”
Fast forward 100 years. Speaking at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Prime Minister Narendra Modi heralded the “dawn of the AI age”, noting that AI will create more jobs than it destroys, with unprecedented opportunities for enhanced productivity and innovation. Indeed, Bill Gates has gone so far as to portend a three-day workweek. But with up to 23% of the working population possibly facing the axe in India by 2040 according to the NITI Aayog, rising to 69% in the World Bank’s estimate, the average worker would remain circumspect despite such rosy predictions. Indeed up-skilling and re-skilling are now strategic imperatives for individuals, firms and governments to stave off impending unemployment.
So is AI the route to joblessness or joyfulness? Much would depend on the choices we make. Technological de-employment is not a new phenomenon, though this time AI is entering cognitive and not only blue-collar work. Agricultural and textile workers became redundant with mechanisation and factory automation in the 19th century and, later, as robots were introduced to assembly lines, electrical, electronics, computers, appliances and transport industries, many were left by the wayside. While living standards and the quality of life increased globally with a broad, though still imperfect, democratisation of basic necessities, debates on the future of work have not adhered to Keynes’s prophecy. The benefits of productivity gains have neither been spread evenly nor have they allowed us to become “free spirits”. Rather, as the economists, Robert and Edward Skidelsky, noted, they have generated a competitive engine of consumption-led growth fuelled by the insatiability of material desires that do not improve our well-being or make us happier in any real sense beyond a limit. Some work more to accumulate and consume more, others to make ends meet given the unequal distribution of productivity gains. Only a few find meaning in what they do. As a result, average working hours have stagnated or increased globally since the 1980s. The economic growth story makes eminent sense for those without basic necessities, but for others, the Skidelskys noted, we are up against a “dream of… riches without end”, a “Frankenstein’s monster that [has] now programmed the game of progress according to its own insane logic”. The colloquial ‘rat race’ has led many — ethicists, spiritualists and environmentalists alike — to question the moral underpinnings of the unchecked economic growth story. Keynes seemingly underestimated one important factor: the acquisitiveness of human nature.
The coming AI revolution will reanimate these questions with urgency. While it is too early to determine the precise implications of the rollout of AI, it will undoubtedly be a defining trend. With the allocation of over Rs 10,000 crore for the India-AI Mission and estimates that the AI industry can contribute up to $1.5 trillion to India’s GDP by 2030, AI adoption in sectors such as agriculture, financial services, transportation, manufacturing, energy and healthcare is already gathering steam. The potential enhanced economic output thus made possible by AI puts to us a key choice: should the gains be distributed to raise the floor universally or deepen wealth inequality and employment insecurity? While some evidence from the OECD indicates that ‘low performers’ at work stand to benefit from the use of AI training to mimic ‘high performers’, the International Monetary Fund predicts that of the 40% of jobs in emerging markets that will have a high exposure to AI, half will replace and not complement existing workers. If the past is any measure, the natural movement of economic forces will likely exacerbate the distribution of productivity gains amidst already strained levels of inequality. Tellingly, in September last year, the International Labour Organization warned of reduced labour income share amidst productivity increases led by AI and other automation-based advancements across 36 countries over the past two decades.
From the proposal for a 3.5 day workweek by the J.P. Morgan CEO, Jamie Dimon, to the call by the L&T chairperson, S.N. Subrahmanyan, for a 90-hour workweek, we must decide how we apportion the fruits of automation. Keynes himself had hoped that technology would allow us to produce what we need at a fraction of the labour — the point was to free up time for the true, non-economic ends of life. Whether we see work instrumentally — simply as a means for sustenance and wages — or as an expression of our productive energies to give meaning to our existence, the disruptive effects of these technological changes deserve careful attention. In threatening to make human labour redundant, they can either release us from the clutches of economic necessity or push us into its arms. For the fortunate, recovering the lost art of leisure, to know what to do with ourselves outside of employment, will take some time. For others, while upskilling would be imperative, securing a just distribution of the economic gains made possible by automation will be critical. Else, we would face the prospect of a leisurely ‘India’ and a toiling ‘Bharat’.
These questions are still some distance away. India’s growth story has serious obstacles to cross with 129 million Indians in extreme poverty and 55% dependent on the State for free foodgrains. Yet, they are coming.
Raag Yadava is a lawyer and an academic
Source: Telegraph, 1/04/25
