Will AI take our jobs?

Capitalism won't allow for the end of work because of AI

Question: Will AI take our jobs?
Position1 of 3›: No: there will always be jobs for humans
Argument‹2 of 3›: Capitalism won't allow for the end of work because of AI

Capitalism will not allow for the end of work as AI becomes more common in the workplace. For example, new jobs will emerge to manage and control AI. Jobs will not disappear, they will evolve to reflect developing technology.

The argument

Capitalism is such a successful economic model that it has inbuilt coping mechanisms for difficult transformations. The market will absorb the shocks of job losses by creating new wealth for the owners of complex automated technology, who will then create new industries, which in turn will create more jobs. All previous economic shifts - the globalisation of markets, the shift away from agriculture to industry, the creation of financial markets - have led to job losses in some areas, and job creation in new areas.

Context

The market, politicians, and heads of industry will all adapt to the automated world by creating new jobs, even if they aren’t truly essential jobs

Premises

[P1]Capitalism has inbuilt mechanisms that absorb shocks from major economic transformations by generating new wealth and new industries. [P2] Every previous major economic shift, such as globalization and the move from agriculture to industry, has destroyed some jobs while creating new ones elsewhere. [P3] The rise of AI is another such economic shift, so its owners will reinvest gains into new industries that generate new jobs. [C] Therefore, capitalism will not allow AI to end work, and there will always be jobs for humans.

Counter-arguments

Capitalism has never faced a problem so great as mass automation. The way in which capitalism creates new jobs is to allow for mass poverty and inequality. If this happens on the scale that automation promises it will, then human society as we know it could be irreparably damaged.

Rejecting the premises

The market claims to distribute equally, but soaring inequality levels dictate that it has failed in this regard. The market is simply not as logical and fail-proof as people make it out to be.