Will AI destroy the economy?

Fox Business published an article suggesting AI will substantially reduce wage inequality and drive up wages for low-wage workers.

Fortune magazine featured a piece from the IMF stating that AI will raise lower-paid wages.

The Economist implied there is no evidence that AI is displacing jobs.

Economists are typically taught that wages are driven by marginal productivity.

Economists generally believe that in the long run, worker productivity is the key driver of wages.

AI reduces the need for staff to perform tasks, leading to fewer hires, especially for junior roles.

The term "Luddite" has become shorthand for someone who impotently resists the inevitable path of human progress towards improved technology.

Enclosure laws in Britain, which benefited landowners and hurt ordinary people, led to many farmers losing access to common land and moving to cities.

The availability of unemployed workers due to enclosure laws contributed to the Industrial Revolution by enabling factories to easily hire large numbers of people at low wages.

Gary Stevenson believes the idea that the Industrial Revolution's problems would "just resolve themselves" is naive, as it took 200 years for significant living standard improvements to reach ordinary working people.

Artisans all over the world lost their jobs due to British factories and colonialism, leading to situations like famines in India and Ireland.

Significant improvements in living standards and wealth redistribution for ordinary people occurred after World War II.

The question of whether AI will liberate or enslave people depends on who owns the technology.

People in the 1800s and early 1900s had never seen a society where the average worker got a decent share, security, stability, good healthcare, education, housing, or food.

Gary Stevenson highlights that ancestors built labor movements and fought for a fairer share, better pay, healthcare, education, housing, and living conditions despite never having seen such a world before.