344
Productivity & Workflow355
Automation & Workflow225
Software Development251
Marketing & Growth192
AI Infrastructure & MLOps175
Writing & Content Creation203
Data & Analytics142
Photography & Imaging156
Design & Creative170
Customer Support133
Sales & Outreach125
Voice & Speech135
Education & Learning131
Operations & Admin87
A Financial Times newsletter uses 1800s bootmaking to explain how labor-saving machines changed work without causing mass unemployment.
In short: A new analysis highlighted by the Financial Times suggests that new technology can reshape work without wiping out jobs overall, but the changes can still be painful.
In 19th-century Britain, bootmaking was a huge employer, with nearly 250,000 people working in the trade. When a bootmaking sewing machine arrived in the 1850s, it let one person do the work of four. Workers feared they would be pushed out, and some strikes broke out.
The industry did change fast, but mass unemployment did not follow. By 1911, bootmaking employed roughly the same number of people as in 1851.
A study by researcher Hillary Vipond, using UK census records, found why. About 153,000 traditional craft jobs disappeared, but around 140,000 new, more specialized jobs showed up, including sewing machine operators, riveters, and factory supervisors. The big shift happened through younger people choosing different careers, not through older craft workers retraining.
The Financial Times writers say this history may help explain today’s AI worries. Early research cited in the newsletter suggests there is still “little sign” that AI is removing large numbers of existing jobs. Instead, the bigger change may be in what young people study and which careers they enter.
The bootmaking story also came with downsides. Jobs became more concentrated in certain places, and many roles required less training than the old craft. For AI, that raises simple questions: Will new jobs appear quickly enough for new graduates, and will the benefits and opportunities be spread across regions, or cluster in a few cities?
Source: Financial Times