There’s a lot of chatter about AI and machines taking over jobs and wreaking havoc on the job market. But let’s pause and ask: which jobs are they really going to take, from whom, and when will this disaster strike? Historically, machines haven’t destroyed economies or job markets—unless, of course, we’ve managed to overcome scarcity as a society, which seems unlikely anytime soon.
So what does it mean for AI and machines to take over? I believe they’re stepping into roles that people no longer want or, in many cases, that employers are forced to automate when costs outweigh revenues. The real question is what types of jobs people actually want to do and which ones they’re willing to hand off to AI and robotics. Take automatic elevators, for instance. They didn’t replace human operators out of a desire to cut labor costs; they did so to improve efficiency. Similarly, the rise of ridesharing apps didn’t wipe out the taxi industry—it adapted.
Yes, industries shift, wages adjust, and workers are often moved to higher-paying jobs. But AI and machines can’t simply take jobs unless we allow it. When a machine replaces a job, it often leads to the creation of new opportunities that better meet consumer demand. In this sense, scarcity can be beneficial. However, we rarely ask why AI can replace human jobs in the first place. The common assumption is that employers are villainous, opting for AI because they can. But that’s not always the case; employers may prefer humans but also need to maintain profit margins.
From an employer’s viewpoint, let’s face it—people often avoid dying industries. This creates a talent shortage for jobs where workers are unwilling to settle for lower wages in less lucrative fields. Job preferences significantly influence an employer’s choice to hire machines. Many young adults are steering clear of certain professions and are often dismissive of entry-level jobs that many of us started with. These preferences send shockwaves through various markets. For example, AI isn’t taking over tobacco jobs because fewer people smoke. It didn’t eliminate telephone operator roles; we simply don’t need operators anymore. In mining, AI and robotics assist workers, as younger generations are less inclined to pursue those jobs.
AI and robotics haven’t wiped out media and print publishing either; consumer preferences have evolved. As we can see, jobs that adapt and change over time aren’t disappearing, because demand for them persists. When one opportunity closes, another one opens—this holds true across all industries.
Take the restaurant and ridesharing sectors, where AI-driven machines are handling orders and payments, and even driving in some areas. These shifts occur because people are gravitating toward industries perceived as more lucrative or innovative.
We need to grasp the concept of scarcity. If we truly understood it, we wouldn’t assume that AI and robots could or should replace human roles. Fortunately for us, we haven’t overcome scarcity as a society, and if we ever did, it would be groundbreaking—everyone’s needs would be met instantly. But that’s not our reality, and it’s probably for the best if we want to avoid a world dominated by robots.
As long as we’re bound by the economic principle of scarcity, there’s no reason for humans to fear AI and robotics taking over. This foundational economic issue guarantees a constant need for human labor, as there will always be tasks beyond the capabilities of machines and AI. So, rest easy: the future isn’t about robots overtaking human skills. They’re here to handle the tasks we prefer to leave behind.
