Imagine being a gas station attendant in New Jersey in 1992. Every other state in the country had already adopted self-service, but you were protected by a law that prevented customers from filling up their own tanks. Today, thirty years later, thousands of people still work pouring gas in a world where this job is obsolete everywhere. This story perfectly describes our jobless future: it will not be technology that will decide when human work ends, but our political and social choices.
For this reason, beyond apocalyptic fears, the question once again is not "if" this thing will happen, but "how" we want it to happen and what we will do with our humanity "liberated" from the obligation to work for a living.
The acceleration that no one expected
The pandemic has acted as a catalyst for a process that was already underway. Automation and artificial intelligence have found an unexpected, powerful ally in the virus: companies that were previously hesitant are now pushing towards automated solutions also to reduce the risks of future contagion. 53% of Italians are already worried about the negative impact of AI on their salaries, according to a 2023 IPSOS survey. But perhaps we are looking at the problem the wrong way.
The numbers are impressive: according to the World Economic Forum, AI will replace 85 million jobs by 2025, but create 97 million new ones. A balance that seems positive, at least on paper. However, there is a detail that often escapes: the very nature of work is changing so fast that many people won't be able to adapt in time.
The paradox of productivity without work
Robert Solow, Nobel Prize winner in economics, observed already in 1987 that “computers are everywhere except in national accounts statistics”. Forty years later, we are still waiting for automation to translate into a significant increase in global productivity. This paradox suggests something important: Technology does not automatically eliminate the human need to feel useful.
The real revolution will not be in the replacement of man and machine, but in the redefinition of what it means to “be productive”. While Amazon declares that “technology does not eliminate jobs, but creates opportunities,” the reality is more nuanced: it is changing the type of contribution that human beings can make to society. Even to a society without work. What might this contribution look like? Let's make some hypotheses.
First scenario: the universal income society
In the first possible scenario, far-sighted governments (where are they?) implement systems of universal basic income well before automation becomes dominant. Finland, Kenya and other nations have already experimented with forms of economic support that are not tied to traditional work.
In this world, unemployed people don’t indulge in doing nothing. They are passionate about activities that were once considered “wastes of time”: art, volunteering, caring for family relationships, exploring personal creativity. As I pointed out in this article, the problem will not be to find something to do, but to free ourselves from the obsession that everything must be "productive" only in an economic sense. Even the simple human presence, the attention and empathy of real people will be "commodities" of great value in a world of machines.
Second scenario: the organized resistance
The second scenario is more tumultuous. Worker groups, unions, and entire professional categories organize to slow automation, just as happened with the gas station attendants in New Jersey. Laws are passed that force companies to maintain a minimum percentage of human workers, even when that means less efficiency.
This scenario, although understandable, risks creating a two-speed society: on one hand those who embrace change and prosper, on the other those who remain trapped in increasingly marginal and underpaid jobs. History teaches us that resisting technological progress only works temporarily. Sooner or later, competitive pressure makes the adoption of new technologies inevitable.
Third scenario: collaborative reinvention
The third scenario is perhaps the most interesting. Instead of seeing automation as a threat, society embraces it as a tool to unleash human potential. People don't "lose" their jobs: they completely redefine them.
In this world, new forms of social organization emerge. As highlighted in the most recent studies, creative cooperatives, maker communities, and mutual support networks that operate outside of traditional capitalist logic are born. People dedicate themselves to solving problems that the market cannot address: environmental care, elderly care, personalized education, basic research.
The Psychological Dimension of Change Without Work
The biggest challenge will not be economic, but psychological. For generations we have defined our identity through work. “What do you do for a living?” is the second question we ask after asking the name of a person we just met. Without a job, who are we?
The answer might surprise us. Some research suggests that people without work do not automatically become unhappy or aimless. Active retirees, artists, volunteers, caregivers: all examples of individuals who find meaning outside of traditional economic productivity.
A World Without Work: Towards a New Definition of Progress
The transition to a world without work will not be painless, but it could prove liberating. Instead of measuring progress in terms of GDP and productivity, we could start to evaluate social well-being, environmental sustainability, the richness of human relationships.
The jobless future is not a dystopia to be feared, but an opportunity to be seized with intelligence and foresight. Like the gas station attendants in New Jersey, the choice is ours: we can desperately cling to a world that no longer exists, or we can bravely imagine what could be. Technology is offering us the chance to finally answer an age-old question: What would we do if we were truly free to choose?
The answer, perhaps, will surprise us more than we imagine..
