Before you worry about AI taking your job, read what happened to the Luddites
There's a version of the AI-and-jobs conversation that goes: "Don't worry, new technology always creates more jobs than it destroys. The Luddites were wrong."
That framing is lazy. It's also half wrong.
The Luddites — skilled handloom weavers who smashed power looms across the English Midlands in 1811 — were right that their specific skill was being destroyed. Wages for handloom weavers collapsed over the following decades. What they were wrong about was whether the underlying need for cloth production would shrink. It didn't. Cheaper cloth drove demand that a cottage industry could never have satisfied. Aggregate textile employment grew.
Agriculture is the darker version: 80% of the US workforce in 1800. ~1-2% today. That's not "role transformation." That's near-complete displacement of a labor category. The workers moved. They went into manufacturing, services, and eventually every sector that industrialization made possible.
Both histories show the same five-beat pattern:
- Immediate displacement of specific task-holders
- Productivity gains drive demand expansion or labor shifts to other sectors
- New roles emerge around the tools themselves
- Remaining roles require more sophisticated judgment
- Total employment across the economy grows
I wrote this up as the first entry in a longer series on cognitive labor automation — specifically, what these historical precedents actually imply for knowledge work roles when it's judgment being automated rather than muscle.
If you're a developer building AI systems, or an analyst whose workflow is being restructured around LLMs, the Luddite story is more nuanced and more useful than the usual dismissal suggests.
For my longer take on the full subject and series:
Top comments (0)