Back in 1811, the Luddite movement started in Nottingham, England. It was composed primarily of weavers and home textile workers who had lost their jobs as the looms and cloth production plants became automated. People who had developed skills all their lives, sometimes as a third or fourth generation craftsperson, found themselves with no way to support themselves and family. They would mask themselves and destroy factory equipment, trying to regain their livelihood.
Of course, the tides of change overwhelmed them. Many suffered. Most survived and retrained with nostalgic stories of their past lives. They had no support from the English government which gave full violent support to the owners of the factories.
Technology changes whether we want it to or not
This is not an uncommon scenario throughout history. The advancement of the automobile pushed horses (literally) out to pasture and changed roads, use of land, and an entire industry which went from supporting the living horse to support of the “iron horse” (which term was primarily applied to locomotive engines but could apply, in principle, to the personal automobile). As Danny Devito says in “Other People’s Money”, a couple of suppliers of horse harnesses and “buggy whips” survived and they probably made “the best buggy whips ever”. But the vast majority of leather workers had to find other outlets or trades.
As is true with the climate, people are used to change. Humans have survived throughout the centuries because they are adaptable. They make tools, they move, they change their daily habits. But a mass of people can adapt to change that takes place over multiple generations (hundreds of year) much more easily than they can over a period of a couple of years or even a decade.
Self-service options are available at more and more stores and fast food restaurants. At the grocery store, my wife and I avoid the self-checkouts. Why? Though, by ourselves, we do not make much difference we are putting on the brakes, just a little, on a transition that is happening too quickly for people to adapt to.
Rapid change requires coordination, including climate change
Some islands (primarily in the Pacific Ocean) with only low elevation are disappearing. Their people need someplace to move to. Some areas that have crops used to regular rainfall are having periods of drought on a more frequent basis. They need crops that are bred for the newer climate and/or different crops that will work in the new climate. The same holds for areas that are now experiencing more rainfall — especially when it occurs in multiple brief periods causing flash floods and mudslides. New reservoirs may be needed and, preferably, they need to be designed such that they do not disrupt the local ecology too badly. I fear greatly what will happen as the glaciers, providing major sources of water to large populations, disappear.
100-year-floods are now occurring every five years. Hurricanes are stronger and more frequent. Tornadoes are happening in areas of the US that have no recent memory of tornadoes. It is too soon to know if earthquakes, and reactivated volcanoes, have generally increased but there certainly have been a few global ones that were unexpected. When they happen off the coast, tsunamis need to be allowed for.
Such phenomena are occurring now. In the relatively near future, they are likely to get worse. Population shifts need to be coordinated between governments. Support, in both transition subsidization as well as hybridization and crop planning, for farmers and resource harvesters needs to be increased. New building regulations need to be made to have housing better resistant to new weather disasters and climatic situations. Is your government actively working on such? The government in the US is definitely not.
Technology changes directly lead to economic needs.
Some technology changes can make smooth transitions. People typing on computer keyboards is not much different from typing on typewriters (though the ease of mistake correction can lead to “bad” typing habits). Using calculators (or calculator apps on phones) is not that much different than using slide rules, although I am sure the manufacturers of slide rules would not agree with me. I received a beautiful bamboo slide rule for my high school graduation. Small iterations are noticeable but not alarming. Most people can adapt.
The Luddites saw a transformation in a very few years that displaced their skills entirely. Right now, executives are being told all kinds of things about what AI can do and they are leery of continuing business as usual. Perhaps they are right but they are also running into situations where AI can NOT improve things in the ways they were told, or hoped. This AI bubble is making everything shaky and there is a decent possbility that a large section of workers will not just have to learn new skills in their profession but may have to change professions.
There is a general consensus that AI will displace many administrative and clerical jobs. It is much less certain about the technology sector. Some high level administrators are loudly proclaiming that they can get rid of 90% of their staff. Others indicate only a minor change (primarily a requirement of AI experience before hiring). Only time will tell. However, the delay, and uncertainty, is putting new graduates in Computer Science through purgatory. Two of my sons are among them. Other disciplines, and recent graduates, are also affected but not as much as within technology majors.
Consider a store, in which one quarter of its staff deals with collecting money from customers in transactions of buying products. If you have lots of stores no longer needing one quarter of its staff that adds up to a lot of people.
Will there be jobs available for those who want them?
No one knows. Historically, technology changes have left holes that were rapidly filled as new technology led to new job types and positions. This change is somewhat different however in that both the repetitive labor jobs (automation) and creative/interpretative jobs (AI) are being assaulted. It is pretty well certain that new types of jobs will be needed and there must be a market for them in order to work within existing economic models.
There is a definite possibility of further increases in income inequality. With continued automation and AI increments, a business might be able to reduce staff by 25 to 40%. Presumably, the workers remaining are the ones with the greatest experience and skills to continue to be useful in the business. If they are paid in accordance with their contributions then profits will be distributed in a more equal fashion. If the remaining staff continues to be paid the same as before, then profits will rise and be directed to the pockets of owners of capital and stockholders, which will increase income inequality.
Populations continue to increase their average ages and the numbers in their oldest brackets. This is happening at the same time as population growth levels off or shrinks. Health care needs are expected to grow considerably but the economic system in the US does not support this and the US healthcare system is more and more expensive and much less dependable (on purpose to increase profits).
Jobs that require physical presence should be safe through this shift in the job market. Trades (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, …) should be safe until automation/robotics is adequately flexible to do the same type of work. Social/health work will continue to grow as population ages and population pressures increase. In order for such to be paid, some changes in the infrastructure will be needed. Jobs requiring originality, creativity, and aesthetic judgement should continue to be safe and even potentially expanding. Note that it can be envisioned that continued advances of AI and automation might still put these positions in danger.
What would those potential new jobs be? Most of them would exist in the “soft”, non-physical, job areas. The incorporation of such may require economic changes. The spread of wealth, or reduction of income inequality, would allow greater use of, and payment for, such new “soft” professions. That will be greatly resisted.
Conclusion
Humans have survived for thousands of years because they can adapt to changes. But, for rapid change, coordination and planning is needed to minimize suffering and thrashing. In addition, concentration of wealth and resources to a very minor section of the population will make it much more difficult to create new job niches and categories with livable wages.
