In this election cycle, the presidential candidates have heavily focused on the challenges faced by American workers and their families. Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are vying to be seen as the foremost advocate for labor. Reflecting this focus, union leaders made appearances at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. During the vice-presidential debate, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz presented differing opinions on the best ways to support workers.
However, one significant economic issue that remains unaddressed is the impending influence of emerging generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on employment and livelihoods, an issue of great concern to millions of voters. The candidates' lack of discussion on this topic highlights a pressing reality: the next president will step into a landscape already transformed by GenAI, facing even greater disruptions ahead.
Research from Brookings emphasizes the urgency of this matter and its relevance to voters. A recent study, utilizing data from OpenAI, examined over a thousand occupations to gauge their potential exposure to GenAI. The findings indicate that around 30% of the workforce may experience significant changes in their job tasks due to current GenAI technologies, with more than 85% likely to be affected to some degree. More advanced models are expected to emerge soon, many requiring little human oversight.
American workers are astute and increasingly concerned about how GenAI may alter their livelihoods—concerns that government and business leaders have not fully recognized. A 2023 Pew Center survey found that nearly two-thirds (62%) of adults believe GenAI will have a major, mostly negative impact on jobs over the next twenty years.
Yet, technology is not predetermined. The future of work will not solely hinge on AI capabilities. Instead, workers themselves can influence how AI affects their jobs, provided they have a role in shaping the technology's design and implementation.
Who will be most affected by GenAI may surprise many. Traditionally, we equate automation risks with blue-collar workers in manufacturing and similar roles. Yet, GenAI and its associated technologies may disrupt knowledge-based jobs, such as creative and office roles, before impacting manual labor positions. Conversely, well-paying skilled trades, including electricians and plumbers, may remain less affected.
Alarmingly, it is women, particularly those in clerical positions, who face the highest risk of job displacement. Approximately 20 million women in roles like HR assistants, legal secretaries, and customer service agents could see their job security threatened, with many possibly falling into lower-paid, precarious work.
This situation raises important questions about how to ensure that workers benefit more than they suffer from AI's advancements. While the exact pace and magnitude of AI evolution remain uncertain, it is evident that the development of generative AI is outpacing our ability to respond effectively. Fundamental queries must be addressed by the next president and Congress: How can we empower workers to influence AI implementation? What measures can be taken to ensure they gain from AI's strengths? What safeguards will protect them from its potential harms?
Among the pressing issues for the next president is what has been termed the "Great Mismatch," where the jobs most vulnerable to AI disruption are often those with little union representation.
In today’s environment of rapid technological change, many Americans recognize the value of unions. Recent Gallup polling shows a 70% approval rating for unions—the highest in sixty years. Both Harris and Trump have courted union support in their campaigns. However, in sectors where GenAI is set to cause the most upheaval, as few as 1% of workers benefit from union representation, highlighting a serious risk for employees.
The 2023 Hollywood writers' strike exemplifies the critical need for collective worker power in this technological era. Writers, concerned about AI's threats to their livelihoods, successfully pushed for groundbreaking protections, deciding how to use generative AI as a complementary tool rather than a replacement.
Writer Raphael Bob-Waksberg emphasized that workers across various sectors will demand similar protections, underscoring the necessity of unions in this landscape. The absence of worker voices in the deployment of GenAI is a significant concern for workers and policymakers, but it should also capture the attention of employers.
Research indicates that including workers in the design and rollout of new technologies yields substantial benefits for companies, offering strong incentives for worker engagement.
Currently, most AI developers do not include workers in their process, often viewing the challenges to employment as unavoidable. Many business leaders, pressed by the need to enhance short-term profits, focus on reducing labor costs. It remains to be seen whether the advancing AI landscape will shift away from the “lean and mean” mindset that has dominated corporate strategies for the past generation.
Presidential elections function as a reflection on both past performance and future possibilities, particularly as AI presents one of the foremost challenges of our time, with implications for both risks and opportunities for American workers. The next president will need to guide the policies, investments, safeguards, and protections that will shape the work environment for millions of Americans. It is essential to ascertain whether the candidates comprehend the gravity of this issue.