AI meets the Pope
Workers matter
Gordon L. Weil
Last week, Pope Leo XIV issued his first encyclical, the
highest expression of religious thought by the head of the Roman Catholic
Church.
He takes on the growing issues around artificial
intelligence, especially its effect on labor and human values.
AI will reduce or eliminate much human work, indifferent to its
social, economic and personal implications.
Leo’s statement may be the most comprehensive analysis of the
deep-seated problems that AI is creating.
He recognizes that AI can change the amount and nature of
employment. “It is certainly desirable
for technology to relieve humans of arduous, repetitive or dangerous tasks and
to provide intelligent support for human activity. Yet, the protection of
employment opportunities and the irreplaceable role of the individual must remain
the general rule,” he wrote.
Referring to a statement of the American bishops, he noted,
“work is not merely a source of income but a crucial sphere in which identity
is formed, friendships and relationships are forged, practical responsibilities
are learned and one’s vocation is discerned.”
Past events from the Industrial Revolution to mass
production forced individuals to make difficult transitions to new
economies. Leo is not a Luddite; he
does not advocate keeping dying occupations alive to safeguard jobs.
New jobs are developing, and, instead of entirely leaving
adjustment to individuals, the pope seeks a greater role for government in
continually providing training to allow the workforce to develop and meet new
and more complex demands.
When too much emphasis is given to profits and efficiency,
individuals can become objects rather than subjects in the economy. Leo makes it clear that AI will never be able
to duplicate humanity because it relies on data and not each person’s human condition
and experience. Economic success is not enough. AI must fit into a picture of human needs
and abilities.
AI should bring greater efficiency and productivity. That will mean more effective use of time,
requiring higher skill levels. Just as
the assembly line reduced the number or workers and the length of the work week
to produce autos, AI raises the need to reexamine what constitutes full-time
work.
The eight-hour day and 40-hour week have a long history,
growing out of labor demands and economic needs in the Nineteenth Century. They became American law in 1937, setting a
national standard for the required payment of overtime wages.
The work week gradually declined to that point as technical
developments reduced the need for manual labor and unions effectively
organized. Forty hours was a political
decision and was not based on any study of productivity or worker efficiency.
A new look at labor and leisure is overdue, and AI will
force the issue. The variables are in
hours, vacations and holidays. Even
today, the U.S. is far out of step with the rest of the developed world.
According to the International Labor Organization, a UN
agency, and other sources, here are some comparisons:
Hours/workweek Paid vacation/holidays
U.S. 36.27 0
Canada 31.86 17-33
U.K. 31.17 28-30
France 30.76 35
Germany 29.66 30
Denmark 28.91 35-40
Netherlands 26.57 28
One reason why workweeks fall
below 40 hours is the presence of part-time workers. The length of the average
workweek in the U.S. has steadily declined. Paid days-off in other countries are
required by law; there is no requirement in U.S. law.
Even without taking into account the impact of AI and
technology, the U.S. could align better with other countries. Employers could be required to give paid
time off. Now, when new federal
holidays are added, they usually produce little benefit to workers other than
those employed by government.
By itself, this change would contribute to easing employment
reduction resulting from AI. It would be
resisted by some businesses, but the tax system could compel compliance.
The coming needs of the economy should begin to be
identified rather than being left to emerge later.
The reduction in the number of required hours of work
annually would contribute to the growth of the entertainment and recreation
sectors. More public and low-cost
facilities will be needed, financed by fees and admissions. This widely distributed development will
create new needs for labor.
Not only will these sectors create new jobs, especially at
the entry level, but they will respond to the growth in leisure time. Government will need to assume a greater
responsibility in encouraging or offering options in these sectors.
Another sector that now demands increased labor, also often
at the entry level, is elder care. The
American population is aging, creating the need for more care facilities. This has been an entry point to the economy
for recent immigrants. A more systematic
response is needed.
AI need not be seen as a threat to workers, but it must be
understood as requiring a new economic and social revolution.
