Listen to the full episode, here.
Key Points
- John and Sam assert that the fear of AI-driven job loss was not new, but a recurring theme throughout history during major technological shifts. They pointed out that these revolutions, while disruptive, have always resulted in long-term net job growth.
- They argue that human ingenuity is limitless, and this capacity for innovation ensures that new roles and industries will emerge, making the future a time of opportunity rather than scarcity.
- Jobs identified as being at the highest risk were those involving rote, low-skill tasks, such as cashiers and fast-food order takers, as well as roles that could be automated, like taxi and rideshare drivers. The speakers also noted that less productive workers in any field were vulnerable.
- They consider professional service jobs (e.g., lawyers, financial advisors) and skilled manual labor (e.g., plumbers, electricians) to be relatively safe from AI displacement.
- A crucial point is that professionals who actively “lean in” and utilize AI to enhance their efficiency would be the most secure and successful, while those who resisted the technology would be left behind.
- John and Sam suggest that AI would act as a deflationary force on the economy, as increased efficiency would lead to lower costs for goods and services.
- They conclude that the most effective way for workers to protect their careers was to remain adaptable and willing to learn and integrate new technologies like AI into their work.
John Norris (00:30):
Well, hello again, everybody. This is John Norris at Trading Perspectives. As always, we have our good friend, Sam Clements. Sam, say hello.
Sam Clement (00:33):
Hey John. How are you doing?
John Norris (00:36):
Sam, I’m doing fantastically and I hope you are.
Sam Clement (00:38):
I am doing great. And listen—we’re doing great. We’ve got a job, right?
Sam Clement (00:43):
We do have jobs.
John Norris (00:44):
That’s right—for now. I guess for now. And the reason why we’re phrasing it like that is because right now, at all the economic presentations I’ve been making recently, and all the client contacts both Sam and I have had, invariably we’ll get a question about artificial intelligence and its potential impact on the labor markets.
While it feels as though we’ve talked about AI ad nauseam around Oakworth, and while people have been talking about it in the general public, it’s just that question that keeps popping up. It feels as though we just need to keep addressing it so people can—hopefully—not worry so much about the future and the threat AI poses to the workforce.
Because after all, Sam, I would argue that while it’s artificial intelligence now—accelerated computing—we’ve been here in the past. Whenever there’s been a major economic revolution or a significant increase in technology that fundamentally changes our lives and how we conduct business, it has always led to short-term job loss, but long-term job gain.
Sam Clement (01:53):
Yeah, you’re right. While AI is the new trend, there are always trends that change. Industries change. Everything we do changes. New technology gets rid of certain jobs and creates new ones. That just kind of is what it is. This is something we, as human beings, should be accustomed to: things are going to change. There are going to be new things created that get rid of old jobs and vice—
John Norris (02:20):
—versa. Well, the crazy thing is people go, “This time’s different. This time’s different.” Yeah, blah, blah, blah. We don’t know what’s in the future—no one ever has. Clairvoyance isn’t really a thing. And even though I do have a crystal ball—we’re both staring at it right now—
Speaker 3 (02:35):
And a wizard hat.
John Norris (02:36):
And I’ve got a wizard’s hat. Makes me sound a little strange, but I’ve got these things. Still, I can’t look into the future with crystal clarity, and no one can.
However, I will tell you this: for anyone who thinks we’ve done everything we can, remember this—there used to be a cartoon called Dick Tracy. You ever heard of Dick Tracy?
Sam Clement (02:58):
I don’t know.
John Norris (02:59):
All right, the answer to that is no. It’s okay. He was a private investigator and he used to have—
Sam Clement (03:05):
Oh yeah, I’ve heard of that.
John Norris (03:05):
He used to have a watch that was sort of a television. He could talk into it and all that stuff. And that was science-fiction garbage back then. People thought, “No way. We’re never going to get there.”
Same with those early James Bond films with Sean Connery and Q—people said, “No way. That’s never going to happen.”
Even Star Trek, people talking into little communicators—that was science fiction. Submarines were science fiction at one point. And now all these things are day-to-day realities that don’t even seem that cool anymore.
So whenever we say “this time is different,” just remember: we said that in the past too.
Sam Clement (03:49):
Yeah. The anecdotal one for me—I remember growing up thinking, “Wow, it’d be cool if you could have a phone or something tell you what song is playing.” I thought that was science fiction. And now—
John Norris (04:05):
That’s—
Sam Clement (04:05):
Such a low bar. Science fiction might not even be the right term. I just thought it was impossible.
John Norris (04:10):
Well, I’m going to tell you this right now. I’m going to go: Shazam.
Sam Clement (04:12):
Yep.
John Norris (04:14):
Literally and figuratively. If you’re of a certain age, you remember Gomer Pyle saying that.
Sam Clement (04:17):
I get that’s a very low example, but we all have these things that at one point we thought were science fiction—touchscreens, the iPad. I remember the iPad coming out and thinking it didn’t even make sense.
There are always these things that revolutionize industries, get rid of some jobs, benefit others, and create new ones. So I think we’re hammering it home that AI is new, but revolutions aren’t new.
John Norris (04:47):
Revolutions are not new. Going back to the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century—it displaced a ton of farmers. They moved into cities, worked in factories. Then we had the post-industrial or technological revolution where people moved into high-rise office buildings with air-conditioning, working in banks and hospitals.
This time is not any different. Just like we didn’t know what the future held in the past, we don’t know what’s in store for us now. But we do know something is out there.
If you believe human ingenuity has limits, then the world is finite and the future will be awful. But if you believe human ingenuity is infinite—and that if you can dream it, you can do it—then the future is infinite and exciting.
Sam Clement (05:42):
The way I think of it is: human beings are incredibly resilient. So “resilience” is the word I think of. Even if things change and revolutions get rid of a ton of jobs, humans figure out new ways to do things.
John Norris (06:00):
Listen—
Sam Clement (06:00):
That’s kind of what I lean on.
John Norris (06:01):
I agree wholeheartedly. And if we sound a little cavalier, we’re not. Because right now—even though we’ve established we’ve been here before—even if you don’t agree, I think you’ll have thoughts about what we’re going to talk about next.
Sam, what jobs seem to be at the greatest risk right now due to advancements in AI?
Sam Clement (06:28):
There are probably several. We’re already seeing some application of it. A big one being applied right now is people who take orders at fast-food restaurants. Things like that will be the first—those easy swaps into AI.
People say lawyers or financial advisors are worried AI will replace them. I don’t think that’s really going to happen—maybe in some degree. But it’s those easier one-for-one task-based jobs that go first. Taking orders, putting them into a computer—that’s a one-for-one task.
John Norris (07:17):
Well, I’d tell you the jobs at the biggest threat right now—yeah, we’re talking about AI, but it could be any job that doesn’t require any skill whatsoever.
You mentioned kiosks and self-service. Some people might argue that’s not really AI, and they might be right. But it is increased use of technology making those jobs redundant.
Cashiers, for instance. That job is quickly becoming a thing of the past—just like telephone operators. We’ll always have some measure of cashiers, but not four or five in a row taking orders. You’ll have kiosks.
It’s those lower-level, relatively unskilled jobs that require rote input that technology will gobble up—especially in areas where well-meaning politicians keep increasing the minimum wage above the market-clearing price for unskilled labor.
Sam Clement (08:37):
I’ve got one more for you—maybe broader: Uber drivers, taxi drivers. With ride-sharing, self-driving, all that. A large chunk of that is AI-driven and will continue to be. And like you said with cashiers—not only is AI a selling point when it’s cheaper, but also when it’s better. And the data around self-driving already shows it’s safer than humans, even this early.
John Norris (09:25):
Funny you mention that—I kind of veered off in my brain. You mentioned cashiers, then driverless cars. Let me ask you: how many times have you gone to a fast-food restaurant—healthy eater though you are—and they got your order wrong?
Sam Clement (09:47):
Oh, all the time.
John Norris (09:52):
It’s awful!
Sam Clement (09:53):
Do you check the food before you leave?
John Norris (09:55):
Someone always screws it up. But you use the self-service kiosk—
Sam Clement (10:01):
Yeah, it takes one of the two areas of error out.
John Norris (10:05):
It takes the potential for human error down quite a bit. And I will tell you, there was a time not so long ago I was in a fast food joint using the kiosk. I put my stuff in, came back, and they got my order wrong. Boy, I was just like, “How can they get this wrong?” And I looked at my receipt. Who got the order wrong? I got the order wrong.
So I wonder how many times in the past I thought I was ordering something and they input it correctly, but the order came back “wrong.” In any event, that’s an aside. I can agree with you wholeheartedly: when AI or just advancements in technology make jobs and service that much better, people will adapt to it. And then also, when it makes things that much less expensive, that’s when businesses will adopt it.
So that’s what I find frustrating about all these well-meaning politicians dramatically increasing the minimum wage.
John Norris (10:55):
It doesn’t mean that everyone’s going to go out and get fired. That’s what people think: “Hey, we’re going to have all these huge job losses.” It doesn’t mean that. It doesn’t mean business owners are going to immediately go out and cut their workforce. They can’t do that immediately.
It just means that in all probability, a lot of jobs that might have been created in the future might not be, because those business owners are going to find other ways of adding that capacity besides more expensive human labor.
Now, with that being said, I’m not sure we got to all the jobs that appear at risk, but I will tell you a general characteristic of the jobs that are at risk—and those are the ones which were at risk before AI. By that I mean those associates who haven’t established themselves in some form or fashion, who might not be quite as productive.
Frankly, remote workers in a lot of areas—those people that, it doesn’t matter what business, doesn’t matter what company—there’s always going to be some measure of workers, and it might even be yourself, where people go, “I don’t know what they do. I don’t know what they do for a living. I’m not sure what value-add they have.”
John Norris (12:07):
And while they could be saying the exact same thing about you, I think there will always be some positions where people go, “That person really doesn’t add a lot of value to the company.” Those are the jobs that will be made redundant by AI—or at least businesses will blame their redundancies on AI.
Certainly I think, at Oakworth, AI has made us much more productive than a lot of other employers where I’ve worked. I just remember people at previous employers—this one woman sat around and read the Bible all day long. Which is great; I mean, I think you should do such things, but not while you’re getting paid by your employer.
Anyway, I’d say that level of worker—the person that shows up a little bit late, leaves a little bit early, makes sure they use all of their lunchtime and then some, makes sure they use all their PTO and all that—those people that treat their job as a job as opposed to a potential career or a potential to expand, those jobs are going to be at risk.
Now, with that being said, what jobs appear safe?
Sam Clement (13:05):
I think, broadly speaking, professional services are safe for now. I think I threw out lawyers and finance, which could be anything from investment banking to financial advisors to what have you. I think those are largely safe for now, and consultants, things like that.
But I think the trend of jobs that are safe—and the ones within those industries that are especially going to be safe—are the ones that lean in and utilize AI as well. I don’t think of it as, “Oh, AI is over there and we don’t need it.”
Sure, the easy answer is plumbers and electricians and things like that. That’s obvious, right? AI is not going to take those jobs away. It may make them more efficient and you might need fewer, what have you, but it’s not going to take those jobs away.
But professional services as a whole—you’re already seeing them lean in and leverage AI. It’s not separate. Advisory firms and estate planners are using AI. Lawyers are using it to draft—
John Norris (14:03):
The—
Sam Clement (14:04):
Starting point for documents.
John Norris (14:05):
Much better documents.
Sam Clement (14:06):
Consultants are using it. Investment bankers are using it for PowerPoints, presentations—they’re using AI and it’s saving them time. So people still want hands-on help. They want people that they trust handling these important professional services, but they want them to do it efficiently.
So I think AI is a hand-in-hand thing with those jobs. Obviously, the easy answer would be the manual labor jobs: construction, plumbing, things like that.
John Norris (14:33):
The computer’s probably not going to paint your nails—not that you’re getting your nails painted, but I would imagine Hannah is.
Sam Clement (14:40):
I could see that though.
John Norris (14:41):
Well, it’ll probably not do it real well. I would tell you that I mostly agree with you. While people would say, “Well, come on, what about the jobs Sam mentioned being the first to be cut?” I’d say there’s something really unique about human beings.
Human beings are social animals, right? Creatures, if you don’t like calling human beings animals. We’re social creatures and we like dealing with other people, and typically we like dealing with other people that we trust.
At least for now, for the remainder of my career and probably the remainder of yours, Sam, I don’t think we’re going to get to a point where human nature changes so much that people would rather deal with a computer or an impersonal software package for all of their legal needs or all of their financial needs.
We might get there. But I think, particularly for people whose situations are a little bit more complicated, they’re still going to want to deal with an individual, at least in some form or fashion.
I will say, though, what I am concerned about is that AI will reduce the need for the number of attorneys that we’re creating, the number of CPAs that we’re creating, the number of financial advisors that we’re creating. Because as you mentioned, AI is going to make all of those professional people—the architects, engineers—so much more efficient, that they’ll be that much more productive. We will not need as much additional human capacity to meet demand.
Sam Clement (16:19):
It sounds like lower prices for consumers for a lot of this.
John Norris (16:21):
Ultimately, I think AI will be deflationary.
Sam Clement (16:24):
And I think so too. The example I’ve used with people, to your point about human beings being social creatures, is pilots, right? So much of what planes do—and I’m kind of getting over my skis here, I’m not a pilot, I don’t fully understand it—but it’s easy for me to envision a world where planes could be almost fully automated.
John Norris (16:43):
Well…
Sam Clement (16:44):
Would you want to be on a plane that is fully automated and doesn’t have a pilot?
John Norris (16:48):
People that fly the big planes overseas and all that will tell you that’s largely the way it is now. I’ve got a guy—used to be a friend, a strong buddy, “buddy” is a better way of saying it. Really good guy. He flew for a major carrier. He was a long-haul guy. While he lived in Birmingham, he was based out of Chicago and would fly to Delhi, New Delhi—all that stuff. Massively long flight.
And he said, really, autopilot does most of it.
John Norris (17:22):
You type in the coordinates and talk to air traffic control. He said when they’re flying over the Pacific Ocean, they’re not doing a lot of manual flying. It’s the getting up to altitude and getting down from altitude where most of the manual flying is done.
So technology has already taken over a lot of that. And I go through this long-winded story to tell you that we already have a lot of it. But when push comes to shove, you’re probably right—I’d probably like to know that there is at least someone in the cockpit that can take over in case the machine malfunctions or doesn’t see something, a sensor goes out, all of that. It’s more of a backup than anything else.
So yeah, you’re right. I probably would. Who knows—two, three generations from now might be completely different. But right now, those types of jobs I think are relatively safe.
Sam Clement (18:13):
Yep, I agree.
John Norris (18:14):
So what do you think workers can do to protect themselves from all these job cuts?
Sam Clement (18:19):
Well, I think I already said it with some industries that I think are safe. Again, I’m going to exclude the things that computers have almost no role in—the manual labor type things.
John Norris (18:30):
It’s going to be tough on my laptop to dig a—
Sam Clement (18:33):
—ditch. But even then, I think on the business side of those industries, whether it’s planning or scheduling or what have you, I think the best way is to lean into it. I think the worst way is to push against it.
I think, for almost every industry or business or company, there’s some way to leverage AI to some extent.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Maybe—
Sam Clement (19:00):
Maybe not in the plumber fixing the leak, but in the scheduling of it, the answering calls, coordinating which route to go to next—that kind of stuff is already, or will be, so much more widespread. That’s part of what we mean by deflationary—prices coming down.
If you can’t compete with businesses that are becoming more efficient extremely rapidly, I think that’s where you start to be in danger: when you’re competing with someone that has this almost secret weapon in their back pocket.
John Norris (19:33):
Well, I completely agree with you. I would say the best way workers can protect themselves is, as you mentioned, lean into it—or just be willing to adapt to the new technology.
It doesn’t mean that you have to understand exactly how AI works. It doesn’t mean that you have to use it for every single aspect of your job. But you have to be able to at least be familiar with it and use it when you need to, so you can profit from it. Those people that don’t do that are doomed to be crushed by it.
It’s like, back in the day, Sam—this might sound crazy to a guy your age—people said, “I’m not going to send emails. They’ll never replace good old-fashioned correspondence.”
John Norris (20:14):
Nonsense. “Oh, what would we do without the fax machine?” All that type of stuff. I haven’t sent a fax in 20 years, so why would you have sent one?
So those people who say, “I’m not going to do this,” or “That’s not for me, I’m not going to worry with it”—you sound like a Luddite and you’re going to be treated like a Luddite. And it’s going to be bad news for you, and you’ll be one of those people whose job might seem to be at risk.
I agree. So with that—is there any end in sight to this?
Sam Clement (20:47):
Well, I don’t think so. I think the easy answer is no. But what I really believe is part of the issue when you’re talking with people about the benefits and uses of AI—and whether it’s going to change things—is that when people say “AI,” different people think different things. A lot of people still think of AI as a Google search replacement.
Sam Clement (21:11):
That’s not how AI works. You can use it like that. But when businesses and industries are talking about leveraging AI, they’re not saying, “Can you reword this email for me?” or “Can you find this so I don’t have to Google search it?”
It is entirely changing businesses—coding, operations. You could go down the list of entire industries that it is rapidly changing almost overnight. That’s where some of the confusion comes in with the question, “Is there an end in sight?” I’d say no. And I think people who say yes are probably not fully understanding the use cases for AI.
John Norris (21:49):
Well, I would say, in terms of whether there’s any end in sight: has there been any end in sight to the technological advancement that we’ve seen over the last hundred years?
Sam Clement (21:57):
Yeah. Has there been an end in sight for the internet? No.
John Norris (22:01):
It continues to evolve. When human beings were allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors, and when the powers that be allowed for individual property rights and adhered to the rule of law, you saw an explosion in human ingenuity and creativity.
And you’ll continue to see explosions in ingenuity and creativity as long as our governing authorities allow people to keep the fruits of their labors and pass laws that ensure that. As long as we have those things, you will not see any end in sight to the increase in human ingenuity and technological advancement.
You can see that just in the countries that succeed and those that don’t. If you elect—or somehow allow—people to govern you who do not allow for this type of environment, that is when there will be an end in sight.
Sam Clement (22:51):
I agree.
John Norris (22:52):
Alright, guys. Thank you all so much for listening. If you have any questions or comments, please, by all means, let us know. You can always drop us a line at , or you can leave us a review on the podcast app of your choice.
As always, if you’re interested in reading more or hearing more of what we’ve got to say—or how we think—you can always go to oakworth.com, O-A-K-W-O-R-T-H dot com. Take a look underneath the Thought Leadership tab and find access to all kinds of exciting information, including links to previous Trading Perspectives podcasts, links to our newsletter-slash-blog Common Cents, and links to our quarterly analysis and magazine, Macro and Market Perspectives, and all the individual components as well as the magazine itself. And then finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the good work that Mac Frasier and all of the folks in the advisory services group here at Oak Worth Capital Bank put out there as well. So with that being said, Sam, do you have anything else to talk about on this exciting topic today? That’s all I’ve got. That’s all I’ve got today too. Y’all take care.
Please note, this podcast is for informational and educational purposes, and the commentary should not be considered or otherwise construed as an offer to buy or sell investment services or securities of any type. Any political or policy references are made solely for economic analysis and do not reflect any political position or endorsement by Oakworth Asset Management. Any individual action you might take from reading this newsletter is at your own risk. My opinion, as well as those of our Investment Committee, is subject to change without notice. The opinions expressed herein are expressed as of the dates published and are not necessarily those of the rest of the associates of Oakworth Asset Management, Oakworth Capital Bank or the official position of the company itself.
Oakworth Asset Management, LLC (“OAM”) is a registered investment adviser that is owned by Oakworth Capital Bank Inc. (“OCB,” or together with OAM, “Oakworth”), Member FDIC. This podcast may describe the services of both OAM and OCB, but please note that they are two separate entities that provide different services. All investment adviser services, including investment management and financial planning, are provided by OAM. Because of the ownership relationship and possible involvement by OAM associates with OCB, there exists a conflict of interest to the extent that either party (OAM or OCB) recommends the services of the other. Data and third-party information cited are believed to be reliable but are not guaranteed for accuracy or completeness. Investments offered by Oakworth OAM are not FDIC insured, may lose value, have no bank guarantee, and are not insured by any federal or state government agency. For additional information about OAM, including its services and fees, visit adviserinfo.sec.gov.