(Illustration via Pixabay by geralt)

I WAS RECENTLY watching “Landman,” a television drama set in the oil fields of Texas, where generations of families have made their living on the rig. In one scene, workers attend an industry showcase filled with cutting-edge equipment meant to represent the future of drilling.

One machine stood out. It was a robotic drilling system, precise, tireless, and exact. It performed the same work these men had done for decades, the same work their fathers and grandfathers had done before them.

One worker looked at it and asked, “What is that?”

Another answered quietly, “That’s the machine that replaces us.”

That line has stayed with me because it captures a reality we are only beginning to confront. Artificial intelligence and automation are no longer abstract concepts or distant threats. They are actively reshaping the labor market, often faster than workers, educators, and policymakers can respond.

For years, much of our economic anxiety has been directed outward, toward globalization or immigration. But the most disruptive newcomer to the workforce does not cross borders or need housing. It works around the clock, does not get sick, does not take family leave, and never asks for a raise.

Artificial intelligence is already transforming how, and whether, people work.

Recent reporting underscores this shift. Major employers including Best Buy, American Airlines, Amazon, and Adidas have announced layoffs or restructuring tied to automation and efficiency efforts. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader corporate strategy to improve margins by reducing labor costs through technology.

To be clear, innovation and efficiency are not inherently bad. Businesses must evolve to remain competitive. But there is a growing gap between technological advancement and the responsibility companies owe to the workers who helped build them. Long-time employees are increasingly treated as expendable, replaced by systems that promise savings but remain largely unproven at scale.

This pattern is not just economically disruptive; it is socially destabilizing.

As a teacher, I see the consequences of economic insecurity up close. Many of my students’ families depend on multiple jobs to survive. Losing even one source of income can trigger a cascade of consequences, missed rent, utility shutoffs, food insecurity, and, in extreme cases, homelessness. When jobs disappear suddenly, families do not have time to adapt.

The risks extend well beyond traditionally “replaceable” work. Technology ethicist Tristan Harris, who helped sound the alarm about the harms of unchecked social media, has warned that AI-driven displacement will hit entry-level workers especially hard. These are recent college graduates and young adults who rely on early career jobs as their entry point into economic stability. If those rungs disappear, upward mobility disappears with them.

Even highly skilled professions may not be immune. In medicine, for example, AI-assisted precision is already being explored in surgical settings. Faced with a choice between a machine that never tires and a human surgeon operating after long hours with little rest, insurers and patients alike may gravitate toward automation. The logic is understandable, but the workforce implications are profound.

This is not an argument to halt innovation. It is an argument for guardrails.

Massachusetts has long prided itself on being a leader in both technology and labor standards. That tradition now demands action. Policymakers must ensure that automation does not simply externalize costs onto workers and communities. That means requiring transition planning, investing in retraining that leads to real jobs, strengthening unemployment protections, and holding corporations accountable when automation results in large-scale displacement.

Without such safeguards, we risk allowing efficiency to become a euphemism for abandonment.

Technology has always changed work. What makes this moment different is the speed, scale, and breadth of change, and the absence of a coordinated response. If we fail to act, we are not witnessing inevitable progress; we are permitting displacement by design.

The machine I saw on that oil rig did more than drill holes. It exposed a question Massachusetts must now answer: Will innovation serve the public good, or will it erode the very workforce our economy depends on?

The answer will shape not just our labor market, but the stability of our communities for generations to come.

Johnnie McKnight is a middle school teacher in Springfield and a Democratic candidate for state representative in the 11th Hampden District.