For most of history, capital needed labor. That was the deal.

Capital needed workers to turn investment into returns. Workers needed capital to earn a living. The balance shifted back and forth, and in the 1970s productivity and wages started drifting apart, but the basic dependence never broke.

A few years ago I argued it would. My reason was that, for the first time, capital can create labor instead of hiring it.

That changes the whole deal. It also changes who needs to be paid, and that includes more than workers. Throughout history, the people enforcing order also had to be paid.

I later turned the essay into a podcast op-ed. Last November I added a short update about two economic signals that tracked each other for twenty years and then split apart in 2023. You can probably guess what launched just before that.

Harari warned of a “useless class.” I think there is another possible outcome, one we have never had the option of before. Which one we get is not a technology question.

So here is my question for you: when #AI and #automation no longer need us, what reason will capital have to keep us around?

I’d like to hear where you think I’m wrong. #FutureOfWork.

From Mutual Dependence to Obsolescence: The Future of Labor in an AI-Driven Economy 👇 [http://snglrty.co/2Gad9jF](http://snglrty.co/2Gad9jF)

Classical economics suggests a theoretical long-term capital/labor equilibrium. But what about tech unemployment in an AI-driven economy?