Why America Must Embrace Job-Killing Technology

Call me heartless, but nothing would make me happier than seeing 50 percent of American jobs automated over the next decade or so.

Many now treat job automation as a human rights violation. Displacing workers with technology is seen as cruel and unusual punishment, a plot by selfish capitalists to enrich themselves at the expense of the victimized masses.

This soft, self-centered, and socialistic narrative is an anchor weighing down U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness.

Calls to limit automation “crimes” are broad. Unions increasingly resist automation. The Screen Actors Guild went on strike in part to demand protection from AI doing some of their work. Dockworkers, too, are waging a battle against automation.

Even many economists now flirt with neo-Luddism. Paul Krugman, who once wrote that productivity is “almost everything,” recently argued, “We need to protect human workers” from AI automation. Nobel laureate and MIT economist Daron Acemoglu wants the government to tax automation. And two economists writing for the National Bureau of Economic Research even propose that government policy should cut the already anemic rate of automation in half.

The anti-automation sentiment is bipartisan. Progressive pundit Robert Reich claims, “The rush to automate is creating a crisis of unemployment and inequality.” Former Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling sees AI and similar technologies as “threats” to workers. Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang calls automation a “war on normal people.”

Seeking to outbid the Dems’ anti-automation fervor, the new right has followed suit in its attempt to rebrand the GOP as the party of the working class. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) warns that “tech giants are replacing American jobs with automation while claiming it’s progress.” Vice President J.D. Vance declared in 2023 that “Silicon Valley's rush to automate everything threatens the dignity of work." A recent open letter from numerous prominent “family conservatives” called for “technologies that enhance human skill and improve worker satisfaction over those that degrade or replace human labor.”

Even MIT Technology Review—once a gospel of tech progress—ran a cartoon stating, “Opposing technology isn’t antithetical to progress.” It even suggested violence: “Welcome to the Future: Sabotage It.” Meanwhile, the National Academy of Engineering now claims that the only good automation is that which creates more jobs in the same company deploying the technology.

But let’s be clear: While some workers may get hurt by automation, all consumers of the organization benefit through lower prices and improved products. But apparently—nope, that is not enough. No one is allowed to be hurt, ever.

This shift is new and deeply disturbing. The American ethos once embraced automation as a central component of progress. In the 1930s, economist Benjamin Anderson warned, “on no account must we retard or interfere with the most rapid utilization of new inventions.” In 1952, presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson celebrated automation, declaring that the United States at mid-century stood “on the threshold of abundance for all.”

So, what changed?

Some argue that this time is different—that the rate of automation is too high and the pain being inflicted is too great. However, job losses due to downsizing or closures are at their lowest level since 1995. Historical data shows that rates of job loss due to automation were significantly higher in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and Americans widely supported technological advancement, such as automation, during that time.

Others claim that workers no longer benefit from automation-induced productivity gains. But as we showed in Technology Fears and Scapegoats, government data does not support that argument.

In reality, I believe the calls to “destroy the machines” reflect a broader transformation of American culture and values—from honoring risk-taking and tenacity to prioritizing comfort and codling. The new societal ethic is that a good society is a painless one.

Pundits, activists, journalists, academics, and policymakers now demand that everyone be protected from any form of psychological discomfort. To remain in polite company, one must decry automation or risk being labeled patriarchal, capitalistic, or heartless.

But was it heartless to replace gas station attendants with self-serve pumps? Was it cruel to eliminate airline counter staff with self-check-in kiosks? Was it capitalistic to install ATMs nationwide?

All of these “crimes” boosted productivity, raised living standards, and freed up workers for better jobs. These innovations allow the United States economy to do more with less. And history shows that those laid off typically found new employment. Indeed, a substantial body of research confirms that automation increases productivity without leading to increased long-term unemployment.

So, call me heartless, but nothing would make me happier than seeing 50 percent of American jobs automated over the next decade or so. That kind of transformation would double living standards for my (and everyone else’s) children.

Until U.S. culture starts accepting that short-term individual discomfort is the sine qua non of progress, America will continue to decline, at least in relative terms. Automation and displacement equal progress.

This is, at its core, a debate on ethics. English philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which is precisely what automation delivers. However, today’s prevailing ethics are rooted in the work of redistributionist philosopher John Rawls, who insisted on protecting the least advantaged, even at the expense of overall progress.

Rawls wrote that the goal should be “maintaining conditions and achieving objectives that are similarly to everyone’s advantage.” There can be no automation in a Rawlsian world, because even if 99.999 percent of society benefits, 0.001 percent is harmed. Under this moral framework, creative destruction becomes unethical—and growth extremely difficult.

This ethical shift distorts how we define the public interest. In their growing anti-capitalist animus, both the progressive left and the populist right equate public interest with the interests of workers. For example, the Center for American Progress recently published an article titled “Will AI Benefit or Harm Workers?” But why are workers the central concern? What about children, students, consumers, retirees, business owners—or even those who don’t work in automatable roles? The reality is that society consists of many interests, and privileging one group above all of us is a recipe for stagnation.

Relatedly, it’s now fashionable to reject corporate interests, arguing they conflict with the national interest. It was once assumed that large firms were at least somewhat aligned with the national interest. Many folks thought, “Sure, companies want to make money. Nonetheless, they boost productivity and create new goods and services.”

Today, large companies are cast as villains, driven solely by selfish, capitalist interests. As the National Academy of Engineering writes, “The purpose of a corporation is to create shared value, not just profits… The key is to implement measures that enable everybody to benefit from these transformative technologies and turn AI and automation into forces for shared prosperity.”

But in a functioning market, firms already create “shared value.” If they develop new goods and services that consumers voluntarily buy, they’re, by definition, creating value. Public policy can and should address negative externalities like pollution, but beyond that, firms don’t need to be reengineered as moral agents.

What’s especially troubling about this framing is the idea that scientists and engineers should serve as ethical gatekeepers, determining which technologies are “worthy” of development. That’s not their job. If they want to do that, they should start their own company and see if they can make a profit. No, their job is simple: Discover, create, and push the frontier, even and especially if that means the technology is used to automate tasks and replace labor. Deciding what innovations get deployed and how is up to society as a whole, not individual technologists playing God.

P.S. Just to be clear, supporting automation doesn’t mean the government should abandon laid-off workers. The U.S. system for helping displaced workers needs serious improvement. But that’s a reason to fix retraining and support programs, not to reject technological progress.

The sad reality is that America has grown soft, selfish, and socialistic—distrusting for-profit companies and rejecting discomfort. Everyone gets a trophy for participating, and no one can be cut from the team. That’s a sure path to stagnation and decline, not to mention ceding our manufacturing future to China. It’s time for America to become hard, patriotic, and capitalistic again. That means not just tolerating automation but embracing and accelerating it.

Maybe in 50 or 100 years, once we’ve secured a higher standard of living and no longer face intense global competition, we can afford to indulge in comfort. But not today. Embracing the three S’s—softness, selfishness, and socialism—is national suicide.

There are some rays of hope. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently gave a speech, saying America needs to create and operate “the greatest automation build in the history of modern mankind.” Finally, a government official who openly acknowledges and supports (out loud) the critical importance of U.S. automation and tech-driven productivity in American manufacturing.

But he’s in the minority for now, at least in Washington. The dockworkers’ union website sells a T-shirt that reads, “Automation Hurts Families.” Maybe ITIF should sell one that says, “Automation Hurts Feelings, Progress Powers America.” We’d probably get boycotted, so you can just go to despair.com and buy the same shirt I wear proudly.

The author in one of his favorite T-shirts