By Nico Mastrangelo

While a liberal economic view accounts for constant progress and economic growth over time, workers in the modern era remain frustrated with seemingly increasing wealth inequality.¹ While economic outputs have invariably grown since the digital revolution², and time spent at work has somewhat decreased,³ Worker wages adjusted for purchasing power, seem to have trended down.⁴ Suggesting a rise in income inequality among many Western nations. It remains unsurprising then that AI itself has gained considerable traction in almost every sector. Being used for everything from writing essays for students, copy for business, scripts for websites, and algorithms for day traders. Needless to say, it has taken the media by storm, yet little of the conversation seems to be geared toward the socio-political challenges AI could possibly bring to global and domestic economies. Therefore, having set the stage for relevance, this essay will attempt to re-consider the notions of what it means to work, and how a restructuring of our thinking about labor and employment in the modern world may be necessary in regard to forecasting the economic change that AI may bring.

An analysis by Goldman Sachs of occupational tasks in the United States and Europe determined that approximately 66% of existing jobs face some level of exposure to AI automation. Additional estimates of generative AI say that there is potential that AI could replace around 25% of current job roles. Furthermore, applying these findings on a global scale, suggests that generative AI could automate the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs.⁵ This kind of replacement of workers would be what Economists call “Structural Unemployment”, structural unemployment itself is traditionally remedied by a re-training of the workforce. And while no one is certain about the likely outcomes, one of three situations seems likely 1) A large portion of the workforce may lose their jobs and be able to be ‘re-trained’ and able to find work elsewhere.  2) A large portion of the workforce will lose their jobs, and either lack of ‘re-training’ or jobs in the market will lead to a reduction of participation in the workforce. 3) Nothing happens, the free market adapts and everything ‘levels out’ so to speak. Logically, with regard to AI point 3 will not need to be discussed, larger conversations about gradual increases in wealth inequality or workforce participation will occur, yet it would likely not be in response to AI itself.

So beginning with point 1, it is important to note that the most at-risk professions in regard to AI exposure are within the domains of administrative, legal, scientific, or other ‘Highly Qualified’ professions that require higher education. With the least, at-risk sectors being blue color work such as agriculture, service, repair, and food preparation.⁵ Considering the amount of education necessary for individuals in the highly skilled group, it follows that there may be resistance from these individuals to re-enroll themselves in re-training programs. Thus some degree of government spending may be required to motivate and equip these individuals to work in other sectors. Otherwise, a large part of the workforce would be out of work, poor, and likely angry. Regarding the second camp, blue-collar workers are typically more at risk of injury, disease, or early mortality.⁶ Thus, if a large section of the workforce was forced into these types of jobs, an increase in the strain on hospitals is to be expected. (If we learned anything from COVID-19 hospitals are already understaffed, funded, and strained) likely creating a need for more government spending once again. Therefore, in tandem with a likely necessary increase in spending of governments, global growth in GDP, productivity, and worker output,⁵ there may be a ‘third way’ if you will. Though it would require restructuring in how we think about the human condition as it is under the neo-liberal policy.

Currently, I will argue that under such an economic system, we as individuals have been turned into purely economic creatures, or to borrow John Stewert Mills’s term “The Economic Man”. Such a man in the modern world is valued only on his/her ability to be a viable economic creature, thus almost all of our decisions have to be framed under the guise of economic viability. From what we eat, to what we study, to how we spend our time. This arguably, was the most efficient mode of progress, rewarding those who can generate revenue because those who can afford to buy the products will purchase them, allowing them to improve their lives, and in exchange, those involved in the process get a cut of the profits. However, If indeed AI creates such a level of worker displacement that would require public funding, wouldn’t it be best to implement some sort of “Lost Human Operator Tax”? That way, the required funding of public services necessary to re-equip workers, prepare hospitals, and build more diverse education would put less of a strain on the already likely “economically insecure worker”, and instead on the companies that displaced him/her. One might argue that this tax would stifle innovation by de-incentivizing research into AI and automatization. Though, this is nothing more than an application of antiquated thinking to modern problems. I argue that if one is able to succeed in striking the balance of a “Lost Human Operator Tax” and innovation, we could create a system of both increased public services, as well as potential UBI. Thus allowing for innovation that may not have been “Economically Viable” but is still globally beneficial.

For how this may look we can look at the modern Republican Tradition, pioneered by thinkers such as Philip Petit, Quintin Skinner, and Hannah Arendt, who understand the Aristotelian notion that philosophizing and cultural growth can only occur when The People have time to do so. For example, as our democracies struggle with populist rhetoric through the weaponization of politics of passion, perhaps the republican ideal of civic participation would provide an outlet for such feelings of disenfranchisement.  As such, large-scale participation required for, vita activa⁷ is impossible in a world where all members of society are required to spend one-third of their life working, and thus have to hand over the reins of Political Freedom to representatives. In a world where AI may be able to provide enough material for people to spend less time working, it may be possible to hand the reigns of political freedom back over to the people. With large-scale assemblies of individuals taking place and a public forum revitalized. As we have known for a long time, the growth of the human condition happens only when we have been allowed leisure.

Though as it stands, it seems those who are able to invest in these technologies will be able to slash their costs in terms of human capital, work as we know it will transition into labor, and as the wealth compounds away from us, our participation in politics and how we are governed will continue to be hijacked, all the while watching ourselves become increasingly tired and apathetic as all of our workdays will end in sweat and blood once again.

Bibliography

Forty years of inequality in Europe: Evidence from distributional national accounts. (2019, April 22). CEPR. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/forty-years-inequality-europe-evidence-distributional-national-accounts

Global GDP 1985-2027 | Statista. (2023, February 16). Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/

Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2020, November 29). Time Use. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/time-use

Fig 3: Evolution of the proportion of wages in GDP (adjusted wage. . . (n.d.). ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Evolution-of-the-proportion-of-wages-in-GDP-adjusted-wage-share-Source-IMF-World_fig3_281044099

Briggs, J. B., Kodnani, D. K., & Pierdomenico, G. (2023). The Potentially Large Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Economic Growth (Briggs/Kodnani). Economies Research. https://www.key4biz.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Global-Economics-Analyst_-The-Potentially-Large-Effects-of-Artificial-Intelligence-on-Economic-Growth-Briggs_Kodnani.pdf

Trzmiel, T., Pieczyńska, A., Zasadzka, E., & Pawlaczyk, M. (2021). The Impact of Lifetime Work and Non-work Physical Activity on Physical Fitness Among White – and Blue–Collar Retirees: A Cross-Sectional Study. Frontiers in Medicine, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.745929

A term used often in contrast to “Vita contemplativa” (Contemplative life) in Hannah Arendt’s On the Human Condition