The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation across multiple sectors in the 21st century is yet another landmark in the technological progress of mankind. The concept of automation itself–the use of technology which reduces or even eliminates human involvement in certain activities–has been a part of human existence for many centuries. For example, the application of windmills in the medieval era (the Persians were known to use windmills around one thousand years ago) was a form of automation, as it lessened the involvement of men in activities such as grain milling (Carter, 2017). Fear over the impact of automation on the labor market is also nothing new, as stated by Irving Wladawsky-Berger, Research Affiliate at MIT Sloan School of Management. In the early 19th century, Wladawsky-Berger notes, the so-called Luddites of England opposed the use of machines in the textile industry, for fear of the machines’ impact on their jobs, and even destroyed those machines themselves (Wladawsky-Berger, 2017).

​

The advent of AI in the 21st century, along with the continued rise of automation, further amplified fears that the progress of technology will displace jobs. This can leave behind a large number of people who, due to lack of suitable skill or education, may potentially find themselves unemployable as more and more sectors demand the ability to handle AI and automation, or completely set aside human workers in favor of machines which are able to do the same job. Kevin Redden, in his article ‘Addressing Automation in the Twenty-First Century,’ observes of the advent of automation in the United States: “A decade ago, warehouses throughout the United States housed thousands of workers who created, packaged, and shipped finished goods to customers throughout the world. Now, the factories that are left contain an army of robots which do the same job at a fraction of the cost” (Redden, 2019).

​

This potential of displacement by technology can also be found in other parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) warned in 2024 that almost eight million jobs in the country could be displaced by AI, as companies rushed to adopt the technology for tasks usually performed by human labor (Partington, 2024). In China, a study published in 2023, supported by the Beijing Municipal Social Science Foundation and the 2022 Project of the Central University of Finance and Economics Education Reform Fund, concluded that 54% of jobs in the country were at risk of being set aside by AI (Wang et al., 2013). Finally, also in 2023, Goldman Sachs predicted that generative AI could cause an increase of 7% in global GDP–while at the same time stating that 300 million jobs across the world might be put at risk due to automation (Goldman Sachs, 2023).

​

The United States is not spared by this avalanche of AI and automation. A McKinsey report in 2023 predicted that, by 2030, “activities that account for up to 30 percent of hours currently worked across the US economy could be automated–a trend accelerated by generative AI” (Eilingrud et al., 2023). The Pew Research Center’s report in the same year noted that, in 2022, almost 13 million men and 14.6 million women were in occupations most exposed to AI. A variety of jobs were at risk, ranging from tax preparers, web developers, and judicial law clerks to budget analysts and data entry keyers. The report found that jobs prioritizing analytical skills such as writing, critical thinking, and mathematics tend to be more exposed to AI than jobs prioritizing mechanical skills such as equipment maintenance. Nevertheless, such jobs are still at risk from AI-driven robots or machines which are able to do the required tasks. (Kochhar, 2023).

​

The United States is among the countries at the forefront of this technological advance, with some prominent companies and organizations heavily involved with AI–such as OpenAI, Meta, Alphabet, and Nvidia–hailing from this country. Yet as AI and automation continue to progress throughout the rest of this century, the country which has proven so hospitable to their development finds itself facing the potential of millions being put into unemployment by that same development. What, if anything, can and should the U.S. government do under domestic and international law in the face of this crisis to protect the nation’s workers?

​

Obligations of the U.S. Government under Domestic Law

​

The U.S. government’s obligations to protect its workers in this situation, and provide jobs for those who have been put out of work by AI and automation, are limited by the lack of a constitutional right to take part in employment and earn a living. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant the right to employment, nor have U.S. courts, in interpreting the law, ever lent their support to an implied right to employment. This is not to say that the U.S. government has never lent its support to such an idea. In 1944, in his State of the Union Address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” which included the right to employment. (Wright, 2014). The Second Bill of Rights–which also included, among others, the right to a decent home, good education, adequate medical care, and wages to cover for food, clothing, and recreation–was proposed by Roosevelt out of a belief that the “political rights” enshrined in the original Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) were not enough to guarantee “equality in the pursuit of happiness”. This new Bill of Rights was never actually enacted. Some elements did, in the course of history, eventually find its way into American law, such as public health care programs in the form of Medicare and Medicaid (Austin, 2015), but no law establishing the right to employment has ever been promulgated on the federal level.

​

Two years after Roosevelt’s address, the Employment Act of 1946 was passed. The Act declared that it was the federal government’s “continuing policy and responsibility” to create and maintain “conditions which promote useful employment opportunities, including self- employment, for those able, willing, and seeking to work, and promote full employment” (Employment Act, 1946). The act did not enshrine the right to employment for Americans; it only directed the government to promote employment opportunities and full employment.

The 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (also known as the Humphrey- Hawkins Act, after the two men who created the Act), which amended the 1946 Employment Act, recognized the benefits of “full” employment, noting that unemployment puts families at risk of such ills as “disruption of family life, loss of individual dignity and self-respect, and the aggravation of physical and psychological illnesses, alcoholism, and drug abuse” (Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, 1978; Wright, 2014). However, similar to the 1946 law, it does not guarantee U.S. citizens the right to employment. Full employment is an ideal which the government should strive to achieve, but the federal government is not strictly obligated to ensure that all U.S. citizens seeking work are employed and that those who have lost their jobs are guaranteed a new one, and to force employers to hire people who are searching for or indeed have applied for a job.

 

The U.S. Constitution does recognize what are known as “unenumerated rights”–rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but nevertheless regarded as existing and belonging to the people. The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (U.S. Const. amend. XIX). The Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because, during debates over the ratification of the Constitution, there were fears the Bill of Rights could be interpreted to mean that rights not specifically included in the Bill of Rights had been given up (Barnett and Seidman).

 

While the concept of unenumerated rights has been interpreted on the federal level over the years to include such things as the right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965) and the right of parents to be involved in their children’s upbringing (Troxel v. Granville, 2000), employment and earning a living have so far not been regarded as unenumerated rights. This was recognized by Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in his concurring opinion in Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Inc. v. City of Columbus, Mississippi (2022). Golden Glow Tanning Salon alleged that the city of Columbus’ ordinance forcing businesses (including Golden Glow) to close at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic violated business owners’ right to work, which Golden Glow claimed was a fundamental right. The Court ruled against Golden Glow, noting that the right to work has not been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right. In his concurring opinion, Judge Ho agreed with the Court’s decision, but also stated his view on earning a living not being recognized as an unenumerated right (Golden Glow, 2022, concurring opinion of Judge Ho):

 

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of fundamental rights that do not appear in the text of the Constitution. But the right to earn a living is not one of them—despite its deep roots in our Nation’s history and tradition. Governing precedent thus requires us to rule against the countless small businesses, like Plaintiff here, crippled by shutdown mandates imposed by public officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cases like this nevertheless raise the question: If we’re going to recognize various unenumeratedrights as fundamental, why not the right to earn a living?

 

 

Thus, as things stand, there is still no recognized constitutional right to employment or to earn a living. Even if the federal government does nothing to provide employment for those who have been replaced in their previous job by AI and automation, it will not have been a violation of their fundamental, constitutional right. On the positive side, laws such as the 1946 Employment Act and the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act have committed the federal government towards working to realize full employment, but the lack of constitutional protection for those put out of work by AI and automation still provides leeway for the federal government to adopt a more hands-off approach with regards to those people, if it so desires.

 

Obligations of the U.S. Government under International Law

 

The U.S. government’s obligations in this situation are similarly limited under international law. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognizes the right to work in Part III, Article 6:

 

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

 

​However, although the United States did sign the Covenant in 1977, it has not ratified it; as a result, the Covenant has not entered into effect in the U.S. The U.S. is party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), having ratified it in 1994 (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2025). Article 5 of the ICERD “guarantee[s] the right of everyone,” regardless of race, color, or national or ethnic origin, to work, free choice of employment, and protection against unemployment, among others (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965). However, when the U.S. signed the Convention in 1966, it submitted a reservation declaring that “nothing in the Convention shall be deemed to require or to authorize legislation or other action by the United States of America incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America.” Later, when it ratified the Convention, it included a reservation which states that the Convention is not self-executing; that is, the Convention cannot be enforced by domestic courts unless Congress passes domestic legislation implementing the Convention (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2025). Congress has not passed legislation implementing the Convention and allowing it to be enforced domestically (Watson, 2020). The U.S. also emphasized, in its reservation upon ratification, that any dispute between state parties regarding the Convention’s interpretation or implementation can only be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the specific consent of the U.S. (United Nations Treaty Collection, 2025).

 

International law therefore finds itself with a rather limited role in guaranteeing employment and protecting against unemployment in the United States. The U.S. is not legally bound by the ICESCR, having not ratified it. As for the ICERD, as it is not self-executing and no domestic legislation has been enacted to implement it, domestic courts cannot enforce its provisions. The ability of any other state party to refer a case against the U.S. to the ICJ is limited by the fact that any such referral requires the United States’ own specific consent. Furthermore, the U.S. interprets the Convention as not requiring or authorizing action by the government that is incompatible with the Convention. As the right to employment or to earn a living is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, and has not been recognized as an unenumerated right, this seemingly closes the door to any prospect of the ICERD being used to enforce that right. Anyone who tries to argue that the ICERD now gives Americans the right to employment can be simply be met with the objection that the U.S. sees the Convention as not requiring it to do anything that is not compatible with the Constitution, and of course there is still no constitutional right to employment or to earn a living.

 

What Can (and Should) the Government Do?

​​

​​The federal government’s obligations are rather limited under both domestic and international law. The government is not constitutionally obligated to guarantee employment for U.S. citizens, or to ensure that they have the means to earn a living. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the law is entirely silent on the issue–the 1946 Employment Act and the 1978 Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act have committed the government towards promoting employment opportunities and full employment for Americans. Unemployment obviously is not an issue which the government can ignore, and successive presidential administrations have found themselves having to deal with that issue. With the prospect of millions being put out of work by AI and automation looming on the horizon, the government will have to do something to ensure gainful employment is available to them. Any federal regulation in the future should not resist the march of technology and innovation; for better or worse, AI and automation are here to stay. The government must accommodate those tools and simultaneously find a way to keep its workers employed, rather than merely limit the use of AI and automation, which would put the U.S. at risk of falling behind other countries which also invest heavily in those technologies, such as China.

 

One thing that the federal government should do is to encourage upskilling and reskilling programs, equipping workers with the skills required to succeed in the era of AI and automation. In this respect the government can collaborate with the private sector, or simply leave it to the private sector to implement upskilling and reskilling measures, trusting that companies will recognize that taking such measures will benefit themselves and their employees. A 2023 Harvard Business Review article notes that reskilling enables companies “to build competitive advantage quickly by developing talent that is not readily available in the market and filling skills gaps that are instrumental to achieving their strategic objectives—before and better than their competitors do.” The article also observes that major companies have adopted such measures, such as Amazon’s Machine Learning University, which has equipped thousands of employees with machine learning skills (Tamayo et al., 2023). In facing the onslaught of AI and automation, upskilling and reskilling measures may take the form of equipping workers with IT skills which enable them to control AI and automation machines, such as industrial robots. Instead of being removed from their jobs by machines, those workers now find themselves operating and in charge of the machines. Companies can also establish programs aimed at cultivating managerial and leadership abilities as well as other relevant soft skills, providing a pathway for employees to progress towards middle and eventually upper/executive management. Thus, rather than finding themselves marginalized by the advance of AI and automation, they will instead be in control of them.

 

Another thing which the government should do is to continue investing in the social safety net, in order to sustain those who are currently unemployed as they search for a new job. The United States has no direct federal unemployment program for most workers; unemployment insurance takes the form of a joint federal-state program. Each U.S. state runs its own unemployment insurance program in accordance with federal law and with funding from the federal government (United States Department of Labor, 2025). Those who are put out of work “through no fault of [their] own” receive temporary unemployment benefits. Those benefits are not paid out forever; most states have a limit of 26 weeks, with extensions possible during periods of high unemployment (Employment and Training Administration, 2025). This will help unemployed workers stay afloat as they search for a new job. The deadline is appropriate; the program should be designed in such a way so as to encourage recipients of benefits to find new employment, instead of profiting off of the program indefinitely and becoming a continuous burden on state and federal budgets. Indeed, not actively seeking employment and refusing a suitable job offer are often grounds for denial of benefit payments. (Employment and Training Administration, 2025). Nevertheless, relying on such programs alone will not be enough to alleviate the coming crisis should AI and automation continue to put people out of their jobs. Instead of having workers bounce from one job to another (assuming they even managed to find suitable new employment in the first place), equipping them with the skills needed to control and manage AI and automation will keep them employable even as those technologies continue to progress throughout the 21st century.

​​​​​​​​​​​​

References

​

Austin, P. J. (2015). Expansive Rights: FDR’s Proposed “Economic” Bill of Rights Memorialized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, But with Little Impact in the United States. Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15(1), 12-35. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=ckjicl.

​

Barnett, R. E. and Seidman, L. M. The Ninth Amendment – Common Interpretation. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ix/interpretations/131.

​

Carter, E. (2017, November 6). Nashtifan Windmills. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/nashtifan-windmills.

​

Eilingrud, K., et al. (2023). Generative AI and the future of work in America. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/generative-ai-and-the-future-of-work-in-america

​

Employment Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1021 et seq. (1946).

​

Employment and Training Administration (2025). Unemployment Insurance. Retrieved June 5, 2025, from https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/factsheet/UI_Program_FactSheet.pdf.

​

Full Employment and Balance Growth Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq. (1978).

​

Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 52 F.4th 974 (5th Cir. 2022). https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnbdrbwvl/11082022golden_covid.pdf.
 

Goldman Sachs (2023, April 5). Generative AI could raise global GDP by 7%. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/generative-ai-could-raise-global-gdp-by-7-percent.

​

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep381/usrep381479/usrep381479.pdf.

​

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/cescr.pdf.

​

Kochhar, R. (2023). Which U.S. Workers Are More Exposed to AI on Their Jobs?. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/07/st_2023.07.26_ai-and-
jobs-1.pdf.

​

Partington, R. (2024, March 27). AI ‘apocalypse’ could take away almost 8m jobs in UK. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/27/ai-apocalypse-could-take-away-almost-8m-jobs-in-uk-says-report.

​

Redden, K. (2019). Addressing Automation in the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Business & Technology Law, 14(2), 499-531. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=jbtl.

​

Tamayo, J., et al. (2023, Sept-Oct). Reskilling in the Age of AI. https://hbr.org/2023/09/reskilling-in-the-age-of-ai.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep530/usrep530057/usrep530057.pdf.

​

United Nations Treaty Collection (2025). Chapter IV – 2. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Retrieved June 2, 2025, from https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&clang=_en.

​

United States Department of Labor (2025, January 9). Unemployment Insurance (UI) Administrative Funding and Costs: A Literature Review. https://www.dol.gov/resource-library/unemployment-insurance-ui-administrative-funding-and-costs-literature-review.

​

U.S. Const. amend. XIX.

​

Wang, C., et al. (2024). Future of jobs in China under the impact of artificial intelligence. Finance Research Letters, 55(A), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.103798

​

Watson, M. K. (2020). The United States’ Hollow Commitment to Eradicating Global Racial Discrimination. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/us-hollow-commitment-eradicating-global-racial-discrimination/?login

​

Wladawsky-Berger, I. (2017, March 27). Automation and Employment in the 21st Century. https://ide.mit.edu/insights/automation-and-employment-in-the-21st-century/.
 

Wright, R. G. (2014). Toward a Federal Constitutional Right to Employment. Seattle University Law Review, 38(1), 63-89. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2235&context=sulr.

​

​