Whenever I hear someone predict that artificial intelligence will eliminate millions of jobs, I find myself wondering what happens next.
Will people have more time to enjoy life, as some suggest? Or will they struggle to find their place in an economy that has figured out how to produce more while employing fewer?
For America’s cities and towns, these questions deserve more than a discussion about buying new software. They require a conversation about the purpose of local government.
During my 27 years in elected office, I learned that people judge their city through everyday experiences. Does someone answer when they call? Is the water reliable? Are streets maintained? Can a business owner get a clear answer about opening a shop?
Technology should help us do those things better.
Unfortunately, much of the discussion about artificial intelligence centers on how many employees an organization can eliminate. In the private sector, we have all experienced the frustration of navigating automated telephone systems, searching for assistance and wondering whether an actual person still works there.
I would hate to see City Hall embrace that model.
Local governments have an obligation to use taxpayer dollars wisely. Some tasks can be automated, and some positions will change. But reducing payroll is an incomplete measure of progress. A city can employ fewer people and still become more expensive to live in, harder to do business with and less responsive to its citizens.
We have seen technology reshape communities before.
During the Industrial Revolution, factories grew around rivers, sources of power and transportation connections. Workers followed the jobs, and housing, stores and neighborhoods followed the workers. Entire communities developed around the needs of an industrial economy.
Later, automation, changing markets and the relocation of industry disrupted that arrangement. The buildings often remained long after the jobs disappeared. Communities were left to reinvent themselves.
The lesson is that technological progress does not automatically produce community prosperity. That takes leadership, investment and preparation.
Today’s local leaders have an opportunity to apply that lesson.
Imagine using technology to identify water leaks sooner, simplify permit applications or reduce the hours employees spend entering the same information into different systems. Those improvements could give public employees more time to solve problems and help citizens.
The National League of Cities is already encouraging communities to explore AI as a way to improve operations, modernize services and strengthen public trust.
That is a worthwhile direction. But the work must extend beyond City Hall.
Cities need partnerships with schools, community colleges and employers to help people develop useful skills throughout their working lives. They need dependable water and sewer systems, transportation connections, broadband and housing that working families can afford.
Those investments help existing businesses succeed and make a community attractive to new employers.
People will continue to make choices about where they live, raise their children and spend their money. Businesses will make similar decisions about where they invest. A community that neglects its services and infrastructure could save money on its payroll while losing the very reasons people choose to be there.
I am skeptical of promises that eliminating work will somehow produce a comfortable life of leisure for everyone. People need income, opportunity and a sense that their contributions matter.
Cities and towns can help build that future. They are close enough to their citizens to understand the consequences of change and practical enough to bring people together around solutions.
The question for local government should be: How can technology help us build a better place to live?
Answering that question will still require people.