Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
On man vs. robots, don’t trust the economic models
On man vs. robots, don’t trust the economic models
Mar 10, 2026 8:26 AM

Given the breakneck pace of improvements in automation and artificial intelligence, fears about job loss are taking more space in the cultural imagination.Symbolized by President Obama’s famous laments about ATM machines and the more recent concerns about Amazon’s “job-killing” grocery-store roboclerks, the anxiety is palpable and persistent.

Enter the economic planners and doomsayers, using elaborate models and forecasts to affirm such fears, predicting the rise of robot overlords and the demise of human labor. Take the famous 2013 study by economic historian Carl Frey and Oxford engineer Michael Osborne, which loudly estimated that 47 percent of U.S. employment is at “high risk” of being automated in the next decade. Or consider the more recent study by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, which predicted that 40 percent of Australian jobs are at risk.

Such estimates paint a dismal economic future wherein humans are pushed to the side with little to contribute and even less to gain. But what might this picture be missing?

As Ross Gittins explains, mon modeling (a la Frey and Osborne) includes significant errors, oversights, and inconsistencies when applied to the real world:

For instance, the colleagues judged that surveyors, accountants, tax agents and marketing specialists were automatable occupations, whereas Australian employment in these has grown strongly in the past five years….Frey and Osborne say the need for dexterous fingers is an impediment to automation, but their method predicts there is an automation probability of 98 per cent for watch repairers.

Second, Frey and Osborne’s modelling makes the extreme assumption that if an occupation is automated then all jobs in that occupation are destroyed. The advent of driverless vehicles, for instance, is assumed to eliminate all taxi drivers and chauffeurs, truck drivers, couriers and more.

Third, their modelling assumes that if it’s technically feasible to automate a job it will be, without any need for employers to decide it would be profitable to do so. Similarly, it assumes there will be no shortage of the skilled workers needed to set up and use the automated technology.

More importantly, even if the predictions are generally correct about high-level trends — that certain jobs, sectors, and industries will indeed be largely automated — they fail to recognize or account for the unseen and unforeseen developments that result from automation. In turn, they ignore the transformative role of human potential and ingenuity amid technological progress:

More broadly, their modelling involves no attempt to take account of the jobscreated, directly and indirectly, by the process of automation. No one gets a job selling, installing or servicing all the new robots. Competition between the newly robotised firms doesn’t oblige them to lower their prices, meaning their customers don’t have more to spend – and hence create jobs – in other parts of the economy.

All that happens, apparently, is that employment collapses and profits soar. But if it happens like that it will be the first time in 200 years of mechanisation and 40 years puterisation.

Such an outlook requires not only a static view of the economy, but a remarkably dim view of human creativity and possibility. If we look to history, we see that automation has led to greater prosperity and productivity, making more room for humans, not less.

This is precisely because we are not mere machines, consigned to junk yards when particular solutions or services are rendered obsolete. We are creative and imaginative human persons created in the image of a creator God. We are fully capable of adapting, mobilizing, and innovating our modes of service to be in line with his purposes in the earth. When the economic conditions change and mechanization or automation replaces old ways of meeting human needs, es and new human services are created.

Automation will continue to disrupt our old ways of doing things. But knowing what we do about the past and the future of human possibility, we needn’t be fearful of our own position and power. As we survey the barrage of predictable reports about the end of human labor or the rise of robot dominance, let’s be sure to wield our hope and skepticism accordingly.

Image: Stock Snap, CC0

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Public Discourse: Rethinking Economics in the Post-Crisis World
The Public Discourse recently published my article, Rethinking Economics in the Post-Crisis World. Text follows: In the wake of the financial crisis, we need an economics with greater humility about its predictive power and an increased understanding of plicated human beings who, when the discipline is rightly understood, lie at its center. Apart from bankers and politicians, few groups have received as much blame for the 2008 financial crisis as economists. “Economists are the forgotten guilty men” was how Anatole...
Dalrymple on “the right to healthcare”
[update below] British physician Theodore Dalrymple weighs in on government healthcare and “the right to health care” in a new Wall Street Journal piece. A few choice passages: Where does the right to health e from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, pletely to notice it? … When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in...
Five Simple Arguments Against Government Healthcare
The argument from federalism: One of the great benefits of federalism is that the states can act as the laboratories of democracy. If a new public policy is tried in the states and works (as happened with welfare reform in Michigan and Wisconsin), then a similar program has a good chance of succeeding at the national level. The welfare reform went national and proved to be one of the most successful public policy initiatives of the last half century. On...
Wilhelm Ropke for Today
Spurred on by listening to and reading Samuel Gregg, I’ve been making my way through Wilhelm Ropke’s A Humane Economy which is really a special book. The following passage (on p. 69) really caught my attention with regard to our current situation: Democracy is, in the long patible with freedom only on condition that all, or at least most, voters are agreed that certain supreme norms and principles of public life and economic order must remain outside the sphere of...
Radio Free Acton is Back / Perspectives on Health Care Reform, Part 1
The Radio Free Acton crew is back in the studio! On today’s broadcast, Dr. Donald P. Condit and Dr. Kevin Schmiesing join our host Marc VanderMaas for a discussion of the ins and outs of the US health care system. Dr. Condit gives us some background on how the current system came into being, the problems associated with it, and the pitfalls of the current healthcare reform proposals in Washington. Next week RFA will be back for part 2, bringing...
The Healthcare Debate’s False Premise
Everybody realizes that the current healthcare system in the United States has problems. Unfortunately, much of the discussion about what to do rests on a false premise. The argument goes something like this: Our current free market system is not working: health care costs are astronomically high, and close to 50 million people aren’t insured. Maybe it’s time to let the government try its hand. But we don’t have a free market health system; we have a highly managed, bureaucratic...
Healthcare–Don’t Forget the Morality of It
One of the main arguments for nationalized health care is a moral argument: Health care is a right and a moral and just society should ensure that its people are taken care of–and the state has the responsibility to do this. Bracketing for the time being whether health care is actually a right or not–it is clearly a good, but all goods are not necessarily rights–whether the state should be the provider of it is another question. But there is...
Those Seven Deadly Virtues
In the musical Camelot which first appeared on stage in 1960, Mordred — the antagonist, evil traitor and eventual deliverer of a mortal wound to King Arthur — appropriately lauds the antithesis of what good men are to pursue with his signature song titled “The Seven Deadly Virtues” the first line of which ends “those nasty little traps.” The lyrics are clever. “Humility,” Mordred tells us, “means to be hurt. It’s not the earth the meek inherit but the dirt.”...
The Truth Will Set Us Free
God is rational, and the universe is governed by unchanging natural laws instituted by Him. The Bible tells us in the Book of Genesis that “God created the heavens and the earth.” God is not arbitrary; the Bible also tells us that He is just and that He keeps promises to His people. The prophet Jeremiah tells us that God has established “ordinances of heaven and earth.” Since e from a perfect lawgiver, we know that these laws do not...
Biblical Reasons to Give
Dr. David Murray of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary investigates the concept of “biblical fundraising,” reasons to continue to give in the midst of difficult economic times, in the latest edition of his vcast, “puritanPod.” Dr. Murray uses 2 Corinthians 9 as the basis for his brief but valuable message. Check out the video here. ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved