On Mass Unemployment
Published on Jul 13, 2024 (updated Apr 19, 2025), filed under misc (feed). (Share this on Mastodon or Bluesky?)
As far as I can think back, there have been concerns about mass unemployment, specifically because of automation, and now because of AI.
A quick note, what constitutes mass unemployment? I couldn’t identify an agreed-on definition, but it may start at 10%. Personally, I’d have thought and prefer to set it at 20% or higher, after having experienced 10–12% unemployment in Germany during the late 90s and early 2000s.
A high level of unemployment brings both people and governments into precarious situations, and may have various undesirable consequences.
Now, it could be interesting to ponder how true past predictions were—around automation alone, many seem to have feared we’d all be automated away a long time ago. It could also be useful to review what work is, and how, given all the many things we could and should do, there could ever be a high level of unemployment (unemployment seems to be a distribution problem more than anything else).
But, I humbly believe that we typically miss one key piece around mass unemployment: It cannot be long-lived.
This appears so because in our current, alienating system where employment → money → livelihood/survival, mass unemployment (now referring to 20% and higher) is destabilizing for that system, and therefore our societies and governments.
Sustained mass unemployment would then lead to one of two things:
Work is being created to get people employed, and to protect and maintain the system.
The system is being changed to ensure people’s livelihood and survival.
The first option may be how mass unemployments typically pan out.
The second option comes with an ugly side, that of a period of civic unrest that in itself may be uncomfortable and dangerous, and that could also work itself out to lead back to option 1), reestablishment of the previous system. But it also has a positive side, where perhaps for once, we make sure that everyone can live a decent life without being tied and forced to work (cf. exploitation).
❧ When writing this, I realized how more likely that unrest option is both in terms of it actually occurring, but also in terms of it dragging on and still leading back to the same old. That’s scary. But independent of seeing opportunity in automation and AI, I also believe that there’s opportunity in a major crisis, leading to an outcome that can actually be favorable.
I wouldn’t want to put numbers (probabilities) on any of this, but if we can’t seem to proactively make constructive choices for ourselves (e.g., make sure everyone can live a decent life), then there are still going to be good choices we can make when required to do so reactively (e.g., if there isn’t enough work in a system in which work is needed to survive, well then to make sure everyone can live a decent life regardless).
I know—there are so many variables here, and seemingly so little awareness and appetite to make sure everyone is taken care of. And yet, mass unemployment may never last long, and maybe automation and AI may make life better for everyone in a way that we don’t expect right now. In the end, only if everyone is well off, will we truly be well off.
About Me
I’m Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and I’m a web developer, manager, and author. I’ve worked as a technical lead and engineering manager for small and large enterprises, I’m an occasional contributor to web standards (like HTML, CSS, WCAG), and I write and review books for O’Reilly and Frontend Dogma.
I love trying things, not only in web development and engineering management, but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on meiert.com I share some of my experiences and views. (I value you being critical, interpreting charitably, and giving feedback.)