In The Making of the English Working Class, left-wing historian E.P. Thompson challenged the historical tendency to look down on Luddism, the original anti-technology movement. Thompson argued that the 19th-century textile workers who rebelled against new machinery should not be dismissed as blindly resisting progress. Instead, they were protesting a laissez-faire ideology that ignored the devastating effects of these changes on their lives.
This distinction is worth remembering as Britain welcomes U.S. tech giants, effectively outsourcing a modern industrial revolution that is still in its early stages. Today, photographers, programmers, and writers can relate to the helplessness felt by workers of the past, who saw their traditional protections vanish in the pursuit of higher productivity and profit. The unauthorized use of their creative work to train generative AI has generated huge revenues for Silicon Valley, while making their own livelihoods increasingly unstable.
The public shares these concerns. Recent research from the Tony Blair Institute shows that a large number of Britons view AI as a threat to the economy rather than an opportunity. From the perspective of current and future workers, it’s easy to see why. Automating large parts of the workforce may boost shareholder dividends, but it’s unclear what benefit this brings to the people who lose their jobs.
AI already seems to be reducing entry-level roles in white-collar professions. Meanwhile, the energy-intensive data centers promoted under the U.K.-U.S. prosperity agreement will bring significant—and often overlooked—environmental costs, without creating many new jobs. There is also broader public unease about AI’s cultural impact. The Post Office scandal revealed the dangers of letting unaccountable technology control people’s lives. In addition, opaque and harmful algorithms spread division, extremism, and misinformation online—a problem epitomized by the toxic trolling of figures like Elon Musk.
Yet, in its rush to attract private investment and stimulate growth, the Labour Party seems willing to hand over Britain’s technological future to companies like Nvidia and Microsoft. As Sir Nick Clegg—who knows the industry well—has pointed out, this means playing by Silicon Valley’s rules and risks undermining public oversight and capacity. With so much at stake, and amid widespread belief that power is held by distant, self-interested elites, this approach is reckless.
Last month, the Trades Union Congress proposed a “worker-first” strategy for AI, emphasizing that “unmanaged disruption is not inevitable or acceptable.” Its call for employees to have a say in how new technologies are implemented should be taken seriously, not least for the sake of sustainable growth. From creative industries to social care, those working in affected sectors are best placed to recognize both the potential benefits of AI and the risks it poses.
As economist Mariana Mazzucato has noted, many of the technological advances that ushered in the AI era were driven by state investment. Now, AI must be managed for the common good. This requires a public conversation that goes far beyond the profit-driven interests of big tech. A Labour government should have no hesitation in starting this broader debate—and it should begin in the workplace.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about The Guardians perspective on AI and employment designed to be clear concise and helpful
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What is The Guardians main argument about AI and jobs
The Guardian argues that the AI revolution should be managed to benefit all of society not just a handful of tech executives and shareholders It should create shared prosperity not worsen inequality
2 Wont AI just create new better jobs to replace the old ones
While AI will create new jobs The Guardian emphasizes that this isnt automatic Without proactive policies the new jobs might be fewer require different skills or be concentrated in the hands of a few leaving many people behind
3 What does benefit everyone actually mean in this context
It means ensuring that the wealth and productivity gains from AI lead to higher wages shorter working hours better public services and strong social safety nets for everyone not just increased profits for corporations
4 I keep hearing about universal basic income How is that related
The Guardian often discusses UBI as a potential solution If AI makes many jobs obsolete a UBI could provide a financial floor for everyone ensuring people can afford necessities while they retrain or pursue other meaningful work
Advanced Detailed Questions
5 How could AI specifically worsen economic inequality
AI could concentrate wealth by
Displacing workers in routine jobs faster than new sectors can absorb them
Increasing the value of capital over labor rewarding owners and investors disproportionately
Creating a winnertakemost market where a few AIdominated companies control entire industries
6 What are some realworld policy solutions The Guardian suggests
Commonly discussed policies include
Progressive Taxation Higher taxes on tech giants and capital gains to fund social programs
Wealth Funds Creating public funds that own shares in AIdriven companies so profits are distributed to all citizens
Lifelong Learning Governmentfunded education and retraining programs to help workers adapt
Strengthening Worker Power Supporting unions and collective bargaining in the new AIdriven economy
