WHY AI TAKING OVER JOBS ISN’T THE THREAT MANY FEAR
I often travel between New Orleans, Louisiana, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Since no direct flight connects the two cities, one of the most common routes takes me through Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. After countless layovers, the airport has begun to feel less like a transit hub and more like a second hometown.
And calling it an airport hardly does it justice. The place resembles a sprawling metropolis, complete with its own transportation network. At the heart of that system is the Skylink—a fully automated train service operating around the clock, every day of the year. Trains arrive roughly every two minutes, a fact confirmed by the digital clocks displayed throughout the stations.
These compact two-car trains are far from a luxury. The terminals are separated by such vast distances that walking between them would feel less like crossing an airport and more like traversing a small city. The journey is measured not in yards, or even football fields, but in miles.
What makes the system particularly remarkable is that no human operators are required. The trains function autonomously, moving passengers safely, efficiently, and reliably. Clear announcements warn travelers when doors are closing, identify upcoming terminals, and remind passengers to allow others to exit before boarding.
Now imagine the opposite arrangement.
Suppose every Skylink train required a conductor. Hundreds—perhaps thousands—of people could be employed to operate the system. Should Dallas therefore abandon automation and hire workers for every train?
The very suggestion reflects a profound misunderstanding of economics.
Automation should not be viewed as a destroyer of jobs but as a liberator of human effort. By allowing machines to handle repetitive transportation tasks, skilled workers become available to create other products, services, and innovations. Those contributions would never materialize if large numbers of people spent their days simply moving travelers between airport terminals.
In other words, society gains twice. Passengers still receive seamless transportation, while the labor that would have been tied up performing that task is redirected toward new forms of production. The result is not loss, but expansion.
The same principle has played out throughout economic history.
Take agriculture. At one point, roughly 98 percent of the workforce labored on farms. Today, that figure has fallen to around 3 percent. A superficial view focuses on the jobs that disappeared. A more insightful perspective recognizes the enormous abundance created when millions of workers were freed to pursue other occupations.
The products, industries, technologies, and services that define modern life became possible precisely because fewer people were required to grow food.
Elevators provide another revealing example.
Many younger readers may never have encountered an elevator operator, but such positions were once commonplace. Entering an elevator often meant sharing the ride with a dedicated employee whose sole responsibility was to operate the controls. You would tell him your destination floor, and he would guide the elevator there manually.
Upon arrival, he might announce “Step up” or “Step down,” depending on whether the elevator stopped slightly above or below the floor level. If necessary, he would carefully adjust the controls to achieve a smoother landing.
Tens of thousands of people earned a living this way.
As technology advanced, those jobs disappeared. Yet our ability to travel vertically did not vanish with them. Elevators became faster, safer, and more precise, while former operators found opportunities elsewhere in the economy.
The pattern repeats itself again and again.
Consider airports today. Anyone who has flown in recent decades is familiar with the armies of Transportation Security Administration employees stationed throughout terminals. They inspect baggage, conduct screenings, confiscate prohibited items, and enforce countless security procedures.
Their existence stems from a specific threat: terrorism.
Before hijackings and aircraft bombings became major concerns, passengers could simply walk onto planes with minimal interference. If terrorists had never targeted aviation, there would be little need for vast airport security operations.
Should society therefore be grateful to terrorists for creating jobs?
Of course not.
Absent such threats, the people currently employed in these roles could be producing countless other goods and services. While it is impossible to identify precisely what those contributions would be, one thing is certain: society would be wealthier overall.
This principle applies far beyond aviation.
Economic progress is filled with occupations that have faded into history. Telephone switchboard operators, workers in the typewriter industry, manufacturers of carbon paper and correction fluid, employees of Kodak’s once-dominant film business, and laborers in the horse-and-buggy trade all experienced technological displacement.
Yet few would argue that society should have halted progress to preserve those jobs indefinitely.
Returning to the Dallas airport example makes the point clear. Eliminating automation simply to create work would sacrifice efficiency while producing no additional value. Machines are not economic enemies; they are tools that allow human beings to accomplish more with less effort.
The latest version of this recurring fear centers on artificial intelligence.
Critics warn that AI will eliminate jobs on an unprecedented scale. Organizations such as the Center for American Progress have argued that governments should adopt what they describe as a “worker-centered” approach to AI development and deployment.
But this concern rests on the same misconception that accompanied every major technological advance.
When AI performs tasks previously handled by humans, it does not automatically impoverish society. On the contrary, it can increase productivity, lower costs, expand output, and free workers to pursue higher-value activities. If the goal is greater prosperity, AI represents an opportunity rather than a threat.
Groups focused on improving workers’ lives should recognize that technological advancement has historically been one of the greatest drivers of rising living standards.
Similarly, the International Labour Organization has emphasized the importance of limiting what it calls “AI-induced technological unemployment.” Yet technological breakthroughs have consistently done far more than eliminate specific jobs. They have expanded wealth, created entirely new industries, and lifted living standards for millions.
Artificial intelligence is unlikely to break that pattern.
Even the famous economist John Maynard Keynes worried about what he termed “technological unemployment,” fearing that innovation might advance faster than society’s ability to find new work for displaced labor.
History has repeatedly challenged that prediction.
For centuries, new technologies have rendered particular occupations obsolete. Yet each wave of innovation has also generated new opportunities, new industries, and new forms of employment that were previously unimaginable.
The lesson remains the same today as it was during the rise of mechanized farming, automated elevators, and countless other innovations: economic progress does not come from preserving every existing job. It comes from freeing human talent to create something better.
And that is precisely why AI should inspire optimism rather than alarm.