Again, AI Isn’t Going to Take All Our Jobs…
But If It Did, Would That Be So Bad?
Every time a new technology rolls in, the same tired panic begins:
“The machines will take our jobs!” (Luddites, 1811)
“The car industry will destroy horse-related work!” (Horse breeders, 1900s)
“The washing machine will put domestic workers out of business!” (Abraham Lincoln...probably)
“AI is coming for all of us!” (Twitter economists, 2024)
Same story, different century.
But let’s take the AI panic to its logical conclusion.
Say AI does eliminate most traditional jobs. Say we don’t need to work 40 hours a week anymore.
Is that… actually a problem?
For most of history, people didn’t live in two-income households, grinding away at a 9-to-5 job. That model is new, unnatural, and arguably failing.
What if AI and automation aren’t about job destruction but about liberating us from unnecessary work?
Enjoying the read? Fuel my next deep dive with a coffee! ☕️🚀
The Data: More Technology, More Jobs, More Wealth
Every time we automate, we create more jobs and more prosperity—just not always in the same place.
🔹 From Horses to Cars – The U.S. had ~131,000 people employed in horse-related industries in 1890. By 1910, auto-related jobs had already surpassed that. Today? The global auto industry supports over 9 million jobs directly, with millions more in supply chains, mechanics, and infrastructure.
🔹 The Internet Boom – In 1990, jobs for web developers, social media managers, or e-commerce experts were…sparse, to say the least. By 2024? The U.S. alone has 4.5 million people in IT services, a sector worth $1.5 trillion.
🔹 AI & Automation Now—AI-driven industries are expected to create 97 million new jobs globally by 2025. These include everything from AI trainers and automation specialists to human-in-the-loop facilitators and robotic system engineers.
When one category of work disappears, people assume that’s the full picture. They never stop to examine what’s being created.
Henry Hazlitt put it best: “The number of jobs destroyed is always visible. The number of jobs created is not.”
Why Do We Fear This So Much?
The Spinning Jenny in the 18th century caused riots because people thought it would eliminate textile jobs. When tractors replaced farmhands, people predicted rural economies would collapse. When computers arrived, office workers feared mass layoffs.
At every stage of history, people have asked, “But what will we do if we don’t have to work as much?” And yet, here we are—still working, still adapting, still creating new industries from the ashes of the old ones.
Every time technology reshapes the economy, the same cycle plays out:
🔹 Technology disrupts existing work.
🔹 People panic that the economy is doomed.
🔹 The economy adapts, new industries emerge, and life moves on.
But perhaps the panic this time is different.
Maybe it’s not just about losing jobs—it’s about losing identity, structure, and purpose.
For centuries, people defined themselves by what they did for work. The farmer, the blacksmith, the factory worker, the office employee—labor schedules have dictated our days, and our worth is often measured by productivity.
If AI really does make large-scale employment less necessary, then what?
🔸 What happens when work is no longer the central pillar of life?
🔸 What do people do when they don’t have to clock in somewhere every day?
🔸 Does society know how to function when survival isn’t tied to a paycheck?
Maybe the real fear isn’t economic collapse—it’s that we don’t know how to structure life outside of work.
And if that’s the case, AI isn’t the problem. We are.
“All things are subject to decay, and when fate summons, monarchs must obey.” – John Dryden, 1697
For most of history, we didn’t live in dual-income, 9-to-5, 40-hour workweeks. That’s a modern invention—a result of the industrial age, Taylorism, and corporate scaling.
🔸 For thousands of years, people worked seasonally, task-based, or dynamically—not in fixed shifts.
🔸 Before the mid-20th century, most households weren’t dual-income. The “two-income trap” is a recent phenomenon.
🔸 Five-day workweeks weren’t even standard until the 20th century. Henry Ford pushed it in 1926.
What if automation isn’t about job destruction but something that allows us to return to a more natural form of work? What if the real problem isn’t AI but our inability to imagine a world without work as the center of life?
What if the real problem isn’t AI but our inability to imagine a world without work as the center of life?
The Hidden Truth: AI Will Bring Deflation—And That’s a Good Thing
The other big factor no one talks about: deflation.
Automation reduces costs. More productivity means cheaper goods, more abundance, and less need to work as much.
Sounds good, right? Nope. Governments and central banks hate deflation.
The Fed targets 2% inflation every year because deflation means prices drop, wages adjust, and debt becomes harder to inflate away…that sound familiar?
If AI and automation bring down the cost of everything—food, housing, energy—people would need to work less to afford a good life.
But instead of letting that happen, policymakers will fight tooth and nail to keep prices artificially inflated.
They fear what automation will do to the economy. We should be excited about what it can do for us.
Philipp Bagus points out that deflation, particularly after periods of excessive credit expansion, is a necessary corrective mechanism that removes malinvestment and restores economic balance.
Murray Rothbard took it further, arguing that deflation increases real wages and purchasing power, allowing people to buy more with the same amount of money.
“[I]mproved standards of living come to the public from the fruits of capital investment. Increased productivity tends to lower prices (and costs) [i.e., deflation] and thereby distribute the fruits of free enterprise to all the public, raising the standard of living of all consumers. Forcible propping up of the price level prevents this spread of higher living standards.”
The Economics of Work and Wealth
“Capitalism is a process of industrial mutation—constantly destroying the old and creating the new.” – Joseph Schumpeter
🔹 Joseph Schumpeter’s ‘Creative Destruction’ – Progress doesn’t mean stability; it means destroying the old to make room for the new.
🔹 Henry Hazlitt on Jobs – Stop focusing on what’s disappearing and look at what’s being created.
🔹 Ludwig von Mises on Free Markets – Intervention slows adaptation. The best way to let AI improve lives is to let people adjust naturally, not force them into outdated systems.
Conclusion: Adapt, Don’t Resist
AI and automation aren’t the enemy. Our attachment to outdated models of work is. New tech always kills old jobs—but creates better ones. History is undefeated on this. Deflation isn’t bad. It’s just bad for policymakers who want to control the economy.
If you’re panicking about AI, you’re looking at the destruction, not the creation.
If you’re adapting, you’re already ahead.
Also, Check Out:
📌 Tech Layoffs & Austrian Business Cycle Theory
📌 Artificial Intelligence(AI) and the Persistence of the Economic Calculation Problem
📌 Artificial Intelligence won't destroy your job...