The Social Forces Behind Technology-Driven Automation
Table of Contents
Introduction
There is a growing concern about how AI will wreak havoc on the professional workforce.
AI will make the labor market even more competitive. AI will render human workers irrelevant. AI will cause mass job displacement.
We forget AI is simply another technology. Technology doesn’t cause unemployment.
The people who call the shots do, when the technology to maximize profits falls into their hands and when nobody is there to stop them.
Consider what happened to our manufacturing peers.
Computer technology has been automating their jobs since almost half a century ago. 35% of manufacturing jobs have been lost between 1979 and 2025.
But looking back, the computer was not to blame.
What was to blame was the capital owners who decided to outsource their jobs.
What was to blame was the policymakers who eroded the social safety net.
What was to blame was the individualistic ethos isolating workers from each other, preventing collective action.
Today, we professionals stand at a similar intersection as our manufacturing peers did.
We are at risk of being rendered superfluous by another technology.
Only this time, the forces that made and sealed the fate of our manufacturing peers have grown even stronger.
Three social forces are causing this situation.
The first is the market imperative to standardize work to maximize profit.
The second is the indoctrination of individuals into the ideas that “intelligence equals worth” through education.
The third is the competition and scarcity mindset that impedes collective action.
These social forces make worker displacement by technology-driven automation possible. Not only possible, but preferable.
To ensure a thriving future for professionals, for humans, and for the planet, we must address those forces.
The Market and The Search for Maximized Profit
The first force is “the market” and the belief in the imperative of maximized profit and accumulation.
Industries believe they have a recipe to achieve that, through standardization of work and division of labor.
Remember that Charlie Chaplin movie about the assembly line frenzy? Lucille Ball did something similar. 16 years apart, the same critique.
The production process is standardized, broken down into pieces, and assigned to a designated worker.
Capital owners believe that standardizing workflows ensures efficiency and, ultimately, profit.
Once unique to manufacturing, that approach is prevalent and dominant in many other sectors.
Creating a proposal, implementing research, planning a conference, preparing a contract.
Most professional tasks now have a standardized workflow, documenting the main steps.
Standardization also forges the foundation for outsourcing.
Standardization turns complex tasks into more straightforward ones that require fewer skills.
The number of qualified candidates increases.
Tasks can now be distributed to the professional who charges the least, or creates the most value.
At first, the work was assigned to a part-time employee.
Then platforms like Upwork made it possible to compare price points across the globe.
The COVID-19 pandemic tested the feasibility and productivity of virtual collaboration.
It was then that the conditions for automating professional work were fully established. AI was ready to be picked up by those seeking better ways to maximize their profit, those often called the capital-owning class.
Two points are worth noting.
First, the capital-owning class overlaps with the wealthy, but they are not the same.
Money becomes capital when it is given the intention to grow.
The funds of philanthropists given out to ease social inequality are not capital. Those of an individual trader investing in the stock market are.
The distinction is important for building a community with a shared vision. A small but growing number of the wealthy are rethinking their social responsibility. Sociologist Rachel Sherman’s recent publication offers some excellent accounts.
The other point is related to the second social force.
Standardization of work concentrates wealth in the hands of a few.
But we outside the top 1% have come to justify this search for maximized performance.
How did that happen?
The Education and The Status of Intelligence
Introducing the second force that makes automation of professional labor possible: “the education.”
What is being taught at school? Technical knowledge? Yes. Critical transferable skills? Yes. Meritocracy, that is, those with merit deserve more, those with less merit must upskill, or risk being left behind? Most absolutely!
Our merits, or intelligence, are regularly measured. Quizzes, mid-terms, finals. A-students get stars. F-students get detention.
We picked up the logic that intelligence equals status.
We search for ways to improve our performance, so we can get ahead or stay competitive. We do it without supervision.
The modern education system has delivered its promise. We see ourselves through the eyes of those who rely on our productivity for profit.
It’s hard to turn our back on meritocracy. After all, it has served us so well.
We professionals are successful meritocrats. We were good students; we are good employees; we are good workers.
Up to now, we tend to be on the winning side. We are the chosen ones.
AI has turned the table on us.
AI has an encyclopedic knowledge. It works with unsurpassable efficiency.
We were the smart kids in the room our whole life. Suddenly, not anymore.
We are anxious.
Not just about losing a job or income. We fear losing our value.
In a world where intelligence and performance dictate value, where is our place when we are constantly outperformed?
We work even harder. We search for skills irreplaceable by AI.
But those are tactics from the old playbook. They no longer benefit us. They never did.
As long as we justify rewards based on intelligence, we justify replacing under-performers.
In the age of AI, the under-performers could be any and every one of us.
It’s time to imagine a different system. It’s time to design a new playbook.
We do so not just to safeguard the future odds of the professionals. We do so to ensure a thriving future for everyone who has been, is being, and will be replaced by the capital-owners’ search for profit.
The work cannot be done alone. But how can we work together?
That brings us to the next social force, the force that divides us and prevents us from acting as one.
Competition and The Diminishing Collective Action
The path to a good life is full of selective processes; your life outcome is in your own hands; work hard to get ahead, or you will be left behind.
These are the typical statements of the third force – the discourse of scarcity and competition.
Professionals represent the single largest civilian workforce in the U.S. Over 90 million people, nearly 60% of the total workforce.
If we were a nation, we would be the world’s 18th largest by population, bigger than Germany, the United Kingdom, and France.
But it’s hard for us to envision a community among us.
Colleagues, co-workers, yes. But a community with shared interests? Not really.
We have been taught to be competitors, trying to get ahead of each other to win a limited spot.
In college, in grad school, in the workplace, to get promotions.
Every time we secure a spot for ourselves, the competition and scarcity mindset gets reinforced.
We gain more evidence that working hard and watching out for ourselves is effective in securing our position.
A wedge is deep among the professionals.
The better we follow the old playbook and the better our outcomes, the more we believe it’s me versus the rest.
But this time, something feels different.
The competition has become extreme. No matter what you do, you still don’t get the results you want.
500 applicants, some with 10 years’ experience, competing for the same entry-level job.
Starting your independent practice while looking for something more permanent, only to find out thousands of others had the same ideas, and clients favor the established firms.
Unpaid internships, extractive RFPs, the list goes on and on.
When the whole professional class shares the (mis)fortune of job displacement, we have no choice but to act together.
Without collective action, we have no say at the table.
We must consider the recent history of our manufacturing peers.
Their size and collective power steadily declined, as the professional workforce rose to what it is today.
They tried hard to demand better working and living conditions for all.
But they were fragmented, their voices ignored.
They weren’t always “conservatives.” The working class used to carry the hope of a better future.
Today, they are mentioned in the past tense.
We must learn from the lessons of our manufacturing peers.
We must resist the urge to compete against each other, as weird as it feels.
We must start to envision a broad community, and try to find ways to bring each other together to find the path forward.
We must hold our principles, values, and purpose. We must find strength and peace in that vision of a collective, better future for all.
In the age of AI, when our intelligence no longer defines our value, how we make our choices will.
We can either choose to stay competitive, or we can choose to become part of something bigger than ourselves.
Conclusion
The social forces mentioned above converge in the same direction – reinforcing the power of those who already have a lot of say.
If the trend continues, professional job displacement and inequality on a large scale will be inevitable.
It’s not too late to make a difference. Every one of us can act now, regardless of our industry, career status, or experience level.
For all of us, changing the course of our society first demands a mindset switch.
We must switch from tying our worth to our intelligence and performance, to building our identity on kindness and support for each other.
We must switch from wanting to be the focus of the room, to serving as the tie that binds us together.
We must switch from letting fear of uncertainty dictate our actions, to trusting the goodness of humanity and community.
We must switch from defending our knowledge and stance, to building consensus through open dialogues and engaging different viewpoints.
The mindset switch is the most important part of the work.
It shatters the foundation of the system that got us into this precarious situation in the first place.
It is also the most difficult part of the work.
The old mindset has been fortified for decades.
The mere thought of slowing down stirs up anxiety.
It is unthinkable to stop equipping ourselves with certifications, experience, and skills.
But the old playbook no longer serves us. It never did. We have no option but to look for alternatives.
This is how.
When you find yourself flipping through the old playbook, remember this.
Your intelligence and performance do not define your worth. Competition does not need to be a requisite for thriving.
Imagine a world where an abundance mindset facilitates collaborations, mutual support, and caring.
You make a good life not through competition, but by cultivating the greater good.
The world is out there, however small it might be now.
Find it, join it, build it.
You support the community; the community will reciprocate your support.
More will come. It’s a positive cycle.
Next time you find yourself trapped by the urge to give power to the old playbook, repeat that process.
Practice it until you create a new neurological pathway and a new conditioned reflex.
Until you no longer take for granted the search for performance, for intelligence, for productivity, for individual status.
You will find a blank new playbook for you to write new tactics.
Together, we can build a world where AI is just another technology, not a threat.
Looking forward to seeing what the future holds.
