The article discusses how economists have historically neglected the implications of technology and AI on working hours, prioritizing income and employment instead. It contrasts historical perspectives, with earlier economists like Marx and Keynes predicting significant changes in work hours due to technology. Despite fears of technological unemployment driven by AI and concerns about a dystopian labor market, past experiences suggest that technological advances do not typically lead to prolonged job losses, at least in the long term.
Historically, many influential economists wrote about hours of work and how technology would affect them. Marx chronicled long hours in the 'Satanic Mills' of the Industrial Revolution.
For decades, there was a widespread belief in the profession that technological change does not result in long-term unemployment, based largely on past experiences with the Industrial Revolution.
Will the labor-displacing dimensions of AI lead to technological unemployment? Are we headed for a dystopian labor market in which an elite group of highly skilled technologists have work?
The simple answer to this question may be 'not much.' Work time became something of a stepchild in the profession, overshadowed by income and wages.
Collection
[
|
...
]