Joe: Everyone's panicking that robots will take our jobs. But what if the real story is that robots will make us so rich, we'll finally have to figure out what to do with all our free time? And what if the most in-demand job of the future is... a butler? Lewis: A butler? Seriously? So the future is less Terminator and more Downton Abbey? I'm not sure if I should be terrified or start practicing my silver-polishing skills. Joe: That's the provocative, and surprisingly optimistic, argument at the heart of The AI Economy: Work, Wealth and Welfare in the Robot Age by Roger Bootle. Lewis: Bootle... he's a big-deal economist, right? Not a tech guy. I remember reading that he’s not exactly a Silicon Valley insider. Joe: Exactly. He's the founder of a major consultancy, Capital Economics, and he's known for making these bold, often correct, economic forecasts. He actually admits he's a bit of a technophobe, which is what makes his take so unique. He's not wowed by the tech; he's looking at it like any other economic force, and that clear-eyed perspective won him a major business book award. Lewis: Okay, I'm intrigued. An economist's take on AI, not a programmer's. That feels like a fresh angle. So where does he even start with a topic this huge? Joe: He starts by tackling that very panic you mentioned—the idea that this time, with AI, it's completely different.

Lewis: Right, because it feels different. We're not talking about a machine that just does one thing faster, like a steam engine. We're talking about something that can think and learn. That seems like a whole new ballgame. Joe: It does, and Bootle dives right into that. He lays out the wild, conflicting visions we're all swimming in. On one end, you have thinkers like Ray Kurzweil, who see the "Singularity" coming—a point where AI becomes so smart it could lead to a kind of digital immortality for us. On the other end, you had brilliant minds like Stephen Hawking warning that full AI could "spell the end of the human race." Lewis: So, eternal life or total annihilation. No pressure. Joe: Exactly. It's this dizzying spectrum of hype. But then Bootle steps in and says, "Hold on. Let's look at history." He brings up the Luddites in the early 1800s. We think of them now as just being anti-technology, but they were highly skilled textile workers. They saw new automated looms coming in and were genuinely terrified that their skills, their entire livelihoods, would become worthless overnight. So they smashed the machines. Lewis: Their fear was real. They weren't just being difficult for the sake of it. Joe: Their fear was completely rational from their perspective. And Bootle gives another, even sharper example: the Venetian shipwrights. For centuries, they were the masters of the Mediterranean, building the best ships. But then, new ocean-going vessels with adjustable sails were invented, and global trade routes shifted to the Atlantic. Suddenly, the Venetians' skills were obsolete. They couldn't adapt, and the entire economic power of Venice declined. The world changed, and they were left behind. Lewis: Okay, but looms and ships are one thing. They're just tools. We're talking about artificial intelligence. An AI can learn and improve itself. A loom can't. Isn't that the fundamental difference that makes this time unique? Joe: That is the billion-dollar question, and it's the one everyone asks. But Bootle's point is that the fear isn't new. The belief that "this new machine will finally make humans obsolete" has been around for a long, long time. He pulls out this incredible quote from Herbert Simon, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, back in 1965. Simon said, "Machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do." Lewis: Wow. In 1965? That's… wildly off. He was basically predicting that by 1985, we'd all be out of a job. And here we are, still working, still complaining about our bosses. Joe: And here we are. That prediction, and many others like it, failed. Bootle argues they failed because they focused only on the technology's potential to replace tasks, without considering the much larger, more complex economic picture. Lewis: So the reason we're still working has less to do with the limits of technology and more to do with... economics? Joe: That's the perfect lead-in, because Bootle's answer to 'why are we still working?' isn't about the tech itself. It's about economics. He argues we're all asking the wrong question.

Lewis: What's the right question, then? If it's not "Will a robot take my job?" Joe: The right question, from an economist's perspective, is something more like: "How will robots affect aggregate demand, productivity, and real interest rates?" Lewis: Okay, my eyes just glazed over a little bit. That sounds like something from a university textbook. Bring it back to me, Joe. Joe: (Laughs) Fair enough. Let me make it concrete with another fantastic story from the book. It's the 1950s, and Walter Reuther, a powerful American union boss, is touring a new Ford factory. A Ford executive proudly shows him all these new, shiny robots assembling cars and says, a bit smugly, "Walter, how are you going to get these robots to pay union dues?" Lewis: Oh, that's a good line. A total power move. Joe: It is. But Reuther, without missing a beat, fires back: "How are you going to get them to buy your cars?" Lewis: Whoa. That stops you in your tracks. If the robots have all the jobs, and people don't have any money, who is buying all the stuff the robots are making? Joe: Exactly! That is the problem of aggregate demand in a nutshell. And it's at the heart of Bootle's argument. He says we should stop thinking of AI as this magical, world-ending entity and start thinking of it for what it is from an economic standpoint: a new and very powerful form of capital equipment. It's a machine, like a tractor or a computer. Lewis: So it's not a new species, it's a new tool. Joe: A very, very advanced tool, but a tool nonetheless. And when you see it that way, you can analyze its effects. More productive tools should mean the economy produces more stuff, more cheaply. This should lead to higher overall wealth. The French economist Jean-Baptiste Say had a famous dictum, "supply creates its own demand." The idea is that the very act of producing things generates the income needed to buy those things. Lewis: That makes sense in theory, but what if all that new income goes to the one guy who owns all the robots? The rest of us are still broke and can't buy the cars, so the whole system still breaks down. Joe: That's the critical point, and Bootle addresses it head-on. He acknowledges that the distribution of that new wealth is a massive political and social challenge. But he argues it doesn't automatically lead to economic collapse. For one, if there are amazing new investment opportunities—building robots, developing software, creating entire new industries—there will be a huge demand for capital. That could push up real interest rates, making saving more attractive. And it would spur a wave of investment that creates different kinds of jobs. Lewis: So it's less like the robots are firing us, and more like the whole economic pie is getting bigger, but we need to get much smarter about making sure everyone still gets a slice? Joe: Precisely. The problem shifts from "the end of work" to "how do we manage the proceeds of this new productivity?" It becomes a question of policy, taxation, and social safety nets—things we can actually control. It's a difficult problem, but it's a much more manageable one than the robot apocalypse. Lewis: Okay, so if the economy doesn't collapse and we all still have jobs... what on earth will we be doing? I'm still stuck on that. Joe: Ah, now we get to the most fascinating and, I think, most creative part of the book. The answer is not what you'd expect.

Lewis: Please don't say "butler" again. Joe: (Laughs) I might! But let's start with what robots are surprisingly bad at. Bootle tells this story about researchers in Singapore who spent ages programming an industrial robot to assemble a simple IKEA flat-pack chair. Lewis: Oh, I know that feeling. I've had my own personal battles with IKEA furniture. It feels like a task designed to test the limits of human sanity. Joe: Well, it took two advanced robots, pre-programmed by humans, over 20 minutes to assemble the chair. A reasonably competent human can do it in a fraction of that time. The point is, for all their processing power, robots still struggle with fine motor skills, manual dexterity, and adapting to slightly imperfect physical situations. Your local plumber or electrician is probably safe for a very long time. Lewis: So skilled manual labor is surprisingly robot-proof. What about jobs that require thinking? That's where AI is supposed to shine. Joe: Yes, but what kind of thinking? Bootle brings up the incredible true story of Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet officer in 1983. He was in a bunker when the early-warning system screamed that the US had launched five nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union. Protocol was clear: he had to report it, which would have triggered an all-out retaliatory nuclear war. Lewis: My stomach just dropped. What did he do? Joe: He disobeyed orders. He had a gut feeling it was a mistake. His reasoning? He thought, "If the Americans are going to start a nuclear war, they're not going to send just five missiles. They'd send hundreds." He trusted his common sense and intuition over the computer. And he was right. It was a false alarm caused by sunlight reflecting off clouds. An AI would have followed the protocol. Petrov's human judgment saved the world. Lewis: Wow. That's a powerful example. You can't program a "gut feeling." So the jobs that survive are the ones that require that kind of un-programmable, uniquely human element? Joe: Exactly. Creativity, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, empathy, complex strategy. And this leads to Bootle's most provocative predictions. He argues that as AI takes over the routine, "robotic" parts of our jobs—data entry, analysis, scheduling—we will become wealthier and have more leisure time. And what will we do with that time and money? We'll spend it on other people. Lewis: Wait, so the future is... more butlers and caregivers? That sounds like a step backward, like we're returning to some feudal society. Joe: It sounds like that, but think about it differently. Bootle argues that the human touch will become the ultimate luxury good. You might be able to get a perfectly good haircut from a robot for five dollars, but you might be willing to pay fifty dollars for a human stylist who chats with you, understands your personality, and makes you feel good. The same goes for personal trainers, therapists, financial advisors, and yes, even domestic help to manage our increasingly complex lives. Lewis: So the human connection itself becomes the product. Joe: It becomes the premium product. And this flips the whole conversation. The essence of technological change, in Bootle's view, is to remove the mechanistic jobs and leave the realm of the truly human... to human beings. We'll have jobs in fields we can barely imagine, focused on relationships, beauty, personal growth, and entertainment.

Lewis: It's a surprisingly hopeful vision. I came into this thinking about job losses and obsolescence, but Bootle's argument is that AI might just be the thing that forces us to be more human, not less. Joe: That's the perfect summary. Bootle's vision isn't about a war between humans and machines. It's about AI freeing us from the 'robotic' parts of our own jobs. The drudgery, the routine, the tasks that make us feel like cogs in a machine. It allows us, and perhaps even forces us, to double down on what makes us human: our creativity, our empathy, and our ability to solve complex, messy problems that don't have a clear answer in the data. Lewis: It really shifts the core question for all of us. It's not "Will a robot take my job?" The better question is, "What part of my job is already robotic, and what part is truly, irreplaceablely human?" Joe: Exactly. And that's a question for all of us to reflect on. The future isn't about competing with AI on its terms—logic and speed. It's about cultivating the skills that AI can't touch. Lewis: That feels like a much more empowering way to look at the future. It's not about being replaced, it's about being refined. Joe: I love that. Being refined. And that's a challenge we can all start working on today. We'd love to hear what you think. What's the most 'human' part of your job that you believe AI could never replace? Let us know on our socials. We're always curious to hear your stories. Lewis: This is Aibrary, signing off.