The economist Wassily Leontief, writing in 1966, used the then-recent decline of horses to make vivid what he foresaw as the coming impact of technological advances on workers. In 1910, the horse had remained indispensable for farming, transportation, and even war, despite decades of the radical technological progress of the Second Industrial Revolution. By 1960, though, horses were obsolete for all of the above, the US horse population having fallen by 85% as a result.
In 1982, when unemployment topped 10%, continuing an apparent "chronic increase in unemployment from one oscillation of the business cycle to the next,"[1] Leontief's warning of a similar fate for humans seemed on track. But the chronic increase ended there, with unemployment generally remaining far below its 1982 high ever since.[2] Median real wages have also not fallen as Leontief feared.[3]
Today Leontief's analogy between human and horse employment is scoffed at by most economists,[4] tainted by its association with failed predictions, but the analogy itself remains worth pondering. Examples from earlier horse history can actually help illustrate the reasons technological progress has continued benefiting workers despite naysayers—the reasons economists tend to give for optimism about the future of work. And understanding how those economics lessons apply to horses as well as humans then helps to sharpen the question raised by the ultimate decline of horses.
Reliance on horses persisted despite technological advances…
Through all the immense economic transformations that took place during the 600 years prior to 1900, the horse remained central to the English, and later the U.S., economy. Even controlling for human population growth, horses per capita remained stable or even increased during this period. Any predictions of the horse’s demise due to technological progress proved repeatedly mistaken.
Sources: Tables 1.10, 3.14, and 7.03 in Broadberry, Stephen, et al. British Economic Growth,