The rise of automation is reshaping the job market, and Labour must heed the lessons of history to avoid repeating past mistakes. As you stroll through a modern supermarket, it’s impossible to ignore the omnipresence of technology: self-checkout kiosks, digital price tags, handheld scanners, and AI-powered facial recognition cameras tracking your every move. But here’s where it gets controversial: while these innovations could signal a tech-driven renaissance, boosting productivity after years of stagnation, they might also foreshadow a dystopian future where machines replace human workers, leaving countless jobs obsolete. And this is the part most people miss: the productivity boom we’re witnessing isn’t necessarily benefiting workers—it’s often at their expense.
In the UK, unemployment has surged to a decade-high, excluding the peak of the Covid pandemic, even as economic output chugs along at a modest pace. This disconnect has fueled a mechanical rise in productivity, but much of this gain comes from plummeting employment in low-paying sectors like retail. Is this progress, or are we sacrificing livelihoods for efficiency?
Retailers, facing soaring labor costs, are increasingly turning to automation. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) points to the £25bn hike in employer national insurance contributions (NICs) and living wage increases as culprits for a 10% jump in employment costs. Meanwhile, retail vacancies have plummeted, with Adzuna reporting a nearly 6% drop in November—traditionally the peak hiring month. Over the past decade, the sector has shed more than 350,000 jobs, disproportionately affecting young people seeking entry-level positions.
But here’s the irony: Labour’s push to raise employment costs, aimed at ending poverty wages and boosting investment, may be accelerating the very automation it seeks to regulate. Tera Allas, a professor at the Productivity Institute, notes, ‘The higher your employment costs, regulation, and risk around hiring, the more likely you are as a business to consider options to automate.’ This raises a critical question: Can Labour strike a balance between protecting workers and fostering innovation?
History offers a cautionary tale. During the Industrial Revolution, factory owners invested in steam-powered machinery, sparking a productivity boom but initially leaving workers behind—a period known as ‘Engels’ pause.’ While living standards eventually rose, the transition was marked by social upheaval and labor struggles. Today, Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey warns of similar job displacement, urging the UK to invest in training and education to prepare workers for the future.
There’s reason for optimism. New technologies often create new forms of work, freeing humans from menial tasks. Yet, businesses worry about losing their pipeline of middle managers if entry-level roles vanish entirely. But here’s the real question: Will the benefits of automation be shared equitably, or will we see a repeat of history, where the gains go primarily to the few while the many struggle to adapt?
Labour’s challenge is clear: learn from the past to ensure that automation serves everyone, not just the bottom line. What do you think? Is automation a force for good, or are we risking a future where workers are left behind? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation.
