🔍 Read the full analysis: A New Work Revolution? AI And The Farming Comparison on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A November 3, 2026 article from ThorstenMeyerAI.com uses farming’s long decline as a share of employment to examine whether AI could reshape work. Historical figures show agricultural employment fell as food production rose, but the article’s suggestion that AI could automate up to 90% of a sector is a thesis, not an established forecast.
ThorstenMeyerAI.com published a comparison on November 3 between farming’s long shift away from human labor and the possible effects of artificial intelligence on work. The article uses historical employment and food-production figures to argue that automation can sharply reduce a sector’s workforce share, while stressing that farming’s transformation unfolded over roughly two centuries in the United States—not in a sudden leap.
The article cites economic historian Stanley Lebergott’s estimate that 73.7% of the U.S. labor force worked in agriculture in 1800. That series counts 1.4 million agricultural workers among a labor force of 1.9 million people aged 10 and older. The source notes that figures before 1840 are estimates, not census counts, and that the labor-force total includes about 530,000 enslaved people. It describes the 1800 figure as roughly three workers in four rather than treating it as an exact census result.
The account traces agricultural productivity gains to multiple changes, including improved tools, industrial fertilizer and crop breeding. It points to a steel plough developed by John Deere in 1837 and dwarf wheat introduced in India and Pakistan in the mid-1960s. India’s official figures cited in the article put wheat production at 12.3 million tonnes in 1964-65 and 26.4 million tonnes in 1971-72. These examples support the article’s account of change through successive developments, rather than one machine replacing farm workers all at once.
The source also reports that 928 million people worldwide worked in agriculture in an International Labour Organization estimate for 2025, around one in four workers globally. It gives the agricultural share of workers as 43% in India, about 1.5% in the United States and about 1% in Germany. Those figures show that the shift is far from complete worldwide and varies greatly by country.
What Farming Reveals About Automation
The farming comparison matters because it offers a historical case in which employment fell substantially as technology and productivity changed how food was produced. The article says the U.S. share of workers in agriculture is now below 2%, while food production increased. It cites estimates that global cereal output grew 4.2-fold from 1961, compared with population growth of 2.7-fold over the same period. It also says U.S. farm output in 2023 was nearly three times its 1948 level, with only a small rise in total inputs.
That history helps frame current questions about AI, but it does not establish that AI will produce the same results or at the same speed. Farming’s changes depended on several technologies and unfolded across generations. Workers also moved into other parts of the economy; the provided material does not quantify where they went or how the transition affected individual communities. The comparison is useful as a prompt to examine productivity and employment together, not as proof of a particular future for office or service work.
The difference between a sector’s share of employment and its total number of workers is also relevant. In the United States, the farm-worker headcount continued rising until about 1910, reaching 11.8 million, even as agriculture’s share of the workforce declined. That pattern cautions against treating a falling employment share as immediate evidence that jobs have vanished in absolute terms.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Pro 14.2-inch with M5 Max, 18-core CPU, 32-core GPU, 36GB Memory, 2TB SSD, Wi-Fi 7, Silver
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
LG 24G414B-B 24-Inch UltraGear Full HD IPS Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Gradual Shift Across Generations
The article places the U.S. experience alongside historical estimates for other economies. It says Japan’s primary sector—including farming, forestry and fishing—accounted for about 85% of gainfully occupied people in 1872, while China’s official series recorded 83.5% working in the primary sector in 1952. India’s 1951 census counted cultivators and agricultural laborers as 69.7% of workers. The measures and years differ, so they should be read as examples of agricultural employment’s historical scale, not as directly comparable modern statistics.
For Germany, the source cites a reconstruction placing the primary sector at 56.7% in 1849 and an official 1882 occupational census recording 43.4% in agriculture and forestry. It says that census undercounted women working on family farms. Between 1882 and 1939, the cited German figures show agriculture’s employment share falling from 43% to 25%, while the number of farm workers stayed between 8 million and 10 million.
The changes described were not limited to machinery. The source links farm output to tools, fertilizer and seeds, including the Haber process for producing ammonia and short-straw wheat varieties. These developments increased the capacity to produce food, while employment patterns shifted at different rates across countries.
“My thesis, not a fact: automation could become a sector of up to 90% within a decade or a few decades.”
— Thorsten Meyer, author of the November 3 article
AI’s Pace and Reach Remain Unknown
The article does not establish how many jobs AI will replace, which occupations will be affected, or how quickly changes might occur. Its suggestion that automation could reach up to 90% of a sector within a decade or a few decades is explicitly presented as the author’s thesis. The source material gives no defined sector, measurement method or forecast model for that figure.
The farming comparison also leaves open how workers displaced or no longer needed in agriculture found other work, and whether the gains were distributed evenly. Historical employment and output figures show broad changes, but they do not by themselves identify the effects on wages, working conditions or particular communities. The source’s figures come from different periods and statistical methods; some early estimates are not census counts.
Further Episodes Develop the Comparison
The article identifies itself as Episode 2 of “Work After Work,” a series about how the economy is built. It says a subsequent episode will cover mechanical reapers, threshers and tractors, extending the farming timeline. The supplied material does not give a publication date for that episode.
For the broader AI comparison, the next evidence to watch is not a single forecast but measured changes in employment, output and the tasks people perform as AI tools are adopted. The article does not provide a timetable or a specific test for its 90% thesis, so its future installments and later labor-market data will be needed to assess how closely the farming analogy fits.
Key Questions
What is the article’s main development?
ThorstenMeyerAI.com published a historical comparison between the automation of farming and the possible effects of AI on work. It argues that farming offers a case study, not proof of what will happen to other sectors.
How many U.S. workers farmed around 1800?
The article cites Stanley Lebergott’s estimate that 73.7% of the U.S. labor force worked in agriculture in 1800. The source cautions that the figure is an estimate, not a census count, and uses “about three in four” as a rounded description.
How many people still work in agriculture worldwide?
The article cites an ILO estimate of 928 million agricultural workers in 2025, or about one in four workers worldwide. The figure shows that the shift away from agricultural employment is uneven and remains incomplete globally.
Does the article predict that AI will automate 90% of jobs?
No. Its author says automation could become a sector of up to 90% within a decade or a few decades, but labels this a thesis, not a fact. The material does not define the sector or provide a forecast method.
Does the farming example show that automation always creates more jobs elsewhere?
No. The cited data show changes in farm employment and food output, but the article does not establish where former farm workers went or how the gains were distributed. It offers a historical comparison rather than a complete account of every worker’s experience.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
