FT column says Industrial Revolution data is a weak guide to AI's impact

FORMAT B - Trend

In short: People debating whether AI will help or hurt workers keep using the Industrial Revolution as proof, but a new Financial Times column argues that the numbers from that era are a shaky guide.

What's going on

A long-running argument has resurfaced in tech and policy circles. One side says the Industrial Revolution eventually brought higher wages and more jobs. Another points to “Engels’ pause,” a period from about 1790 to 1840 when profits rose but workers’ pay did not rise much.

In the Financial Times, columnist Sarah O’Connor says this back-and-forth leans too heavily on historical databases. She argues the data from that time is patchy and unreliable, so it is hard to treat it like a clear map for today.

O’Connor also says the world of early industrial Britain was set up very differently. There was no universal voting, no legal trade unions, and no modern welfare state. Because today’s rules and safety nets are different, the way pay and jobs adjusted back then may not repeat now.

The column’s bigger point is that averages can hide what work felt like day to day. Hours, health, child labour, job security, and independence mattered, even when wage numbers did not capture them. O’Connor notes that Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, interviewed 80,000 users and found worries beyond jobs, including reliability and loss of autonomy (like feeling you cannot make your own choices).

What to watch

The debate may shift from “How many jobs?” to “What kind of work is left, and for whom?” O’Connor points to other ways to understand past change, such as novels from the era and research on groups like hand-spinners, whose work disappeared and did not automatically return in a new form.

Source: Financial Times