🔍 Read the full analysis: From Farm Fields To AI: How Work Has Changed 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
ThorstenMeyerAI.com’s Nov. 3, 2026, report uses agriculture to trace how mechanization, fertilizer and improved seeds helped reduce the share of workers needed on farms while increasing food production. It argues that this history offers a useful comparison for AI, but the author’s projection that automation could affect up to 90% of a sector is a thesis, not an established forecast.
A Nov. 3 report from ThorstenMeyerAI.com traces how farm work shifted from employing most workers in some countries to a small share of the workforce, as tools, fertilizer and improved crops raised agricultural output. The account uses that change as a historical comparison for how automation, including AI, could reshape work, while acknowledging that agriculture’s transformation took generations and does not establish how quickly changes in other sectors will occur.
The report puts the U.S. agricultural workforce at 73.7% in 1800, based on economic historian Stanley Lebergott’s estimate later published by the U.S. Census Bureau. The figure covers a labor force of about 1.9 million people aged 10 and older, including roughly 530,000 enslaved people. Because figures before 1840 are estimates, the report describes the share as about three in four rather than treating it as a precise census result. It says agriculture now accounts for about 1.5% of U.S. workers.
The account describes change in stages, not as one invention. A steel plough associated with John Deere dates to 1837; later came machinery, industrial fertilizer and improved crop varieties. The Haber-Bosch process made synthetic ammonia fertilizer possible at scale. In the 1960s, short-straw wheat varieties developed through work associated with Norman Borlaug helped raise yields when paired with fertilizer and irrigation. India’s wheat harvest rose from 12.3 million tonnes in 1964–65 to 26.4 million tonnes in 1971–72, according to figures cited in the report.
Workers did not disappear immediately as farming’s share of employment fell. The report says the number of U.S. farm workers continued rising until about 1910, when it reached 11.8 million. It also cites Germany, where agriculture’s employment share fell from 43% to 25% between 1882 and 1939 while the number of farm workers remained between 8 million and 10 million. The distinction matters: a sector can shrink as a proportion of all work before its total headcount declines.
What Farm Automation Shows
Agriculture illustrates how higher productivity can reduce the labor needed per unit of output without reducing food production. The report says global cereal harvests grew 4.2-fold between 1961 and 2023, while the world population grew 2.7-fold. Those are separate growth rates over the stated period, not proof that any single technology caused the difference. The account also reports that U.S. farm output in 2023 was nearly three times its 1948 level, with only a small rise in total inputs.
For readers following AI and employment, the comparison puts two questions in view: which tasks technology can perform, and where workers go as demand for labor changes. Farming shows that a declining employment share can accompany expanding production. It does not establish that workers displaced in one sector will readily find equivalent work elsewhere, or that AI will follow the same path. The report’s suggestion that automation could affect a sector representing up to 90% of work within a decade or a few decades is explicitly the author’s thesis, not a measured forecast.
The change is also unfinished worldwide. The report cites a 2025 International Labour Organization estimate of 928 million people working in agriculture, about one in four workers globally. It gives agriculture’s employment share as 43% in India, compared with about 1.5% in the United States and about 1% in Germany. That difference means the history of U.S. farm employment is not a timetable for every country.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Master 4 for Mac, Ergonomic Bluetooth Mouse with Haptic Feedback, Ultra-Fast Scrolling, USB-C Charging, for MacOS, iPadOS, Windo
LG UltraGear 34GX90SA-W 34-inch WQHD Curved OLED Gaming Monitor
Apple MacBook Pro 16-inch (2021) with M1 Max, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Two-Century Shift in Farming
The report’s historical comparisons point to a broad shift from agricultural work toward industry and services, while warning that estimates and definitions vary. Japanese economic historians reconstructed the primary sector—including farming, forestry and fishing—as employing about 85% of gainfully occupied people in 1872. India’s 1951 census counted cultivators and agricultural laborers as 69.7% of workers. China’s official series began in 1952 with 83.5% of employed people in the primary sector. These figures are not identical measures, so they show a general pattern rather than a perfectly comparable ranking.
In the U.S. case, the report links rising output to successive changes in farming. Steel ploughs worked soil that could clog older equipment; mechanical reapers, threshers and tractors later reduced some manual tasks. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer supplemented manure and crop rotation. New crop varieties increased potential yields, particularly alongside irrigation and fertilizer. The report’s account emphasizes combined technological and biological changes, rather than a single invention as the cause of agriculture’s transformation.
The historical arc also includes coercion and unequal conditions. The 1800 U.S. labor estimate includes enslaved people, who were forced to work. The report notes that early workforce statistics often undercounted women’s work on family farms; Germany’s 1882 occupational census, for example, is described as missing some women who helped on farms. Those limits affect how precisely the past can be measured, even as the broad decline in agriculture’s share is clear.
““Farming shows a whole sector can be emptied of human hands.””
— Thorsten Meyer, ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Limits of the AI Comparison
The report does not establish how many jobs AI will eliminate, create or alter, which occupations will be affected first, or how quickly changes will occur. Its proposed 90% figure is framed by the author as a thesis, and the text supplied does not define precisely what “a sector of up to 90%” means or provide a method for calculating it.
The historical data also have limits. The U.S. estimate for 1800 predates regular census-based employment series and includes enslaved workers; cross-country figures come from different dates and use different categories. The report’s productivity comparisons describe changes over time but do not, by themselves, isolate the effect of machinery, fertilizer, seeds or other factors. The source material does not specify how the employment and output figures were adjusted for changes in measurement.
Finally, the article’s historical account does not resolve how workers displaced from particular jobs will fare. It offers no detailed evidence on wages, job quality, retraining, migration or the distribution of gains from productivity. Those outcomes remain central questions for any comparison with AI.
The Series Turns to Machinery
The report is the second episode in Thorsten Meyer’s “Work After Work” series, which examines how the economy is built. It follows an earlier episode that divided work into field, factory and office. Meyer says Episode 3 will cover mechanical reapers, threshers and tractors, extending the account of how farm work changed.
For the broader AI comparison, the next steps are not specified in the supplied material. Readers will need evidence about actual adoption, changes in tasks and employment, and outcomes for workers to judge whether the agricultural history offers a close guide. The report provides a historical case and a question for the series; it does not set out a confirmed timetable for AI-driven job change.
Key Questions
How many U.S. workers farmed around 1800?
Stanley Lebergott’s estimate, cited in the report, puts the share at 73.7% of the U.S. labor force in 1800. It is an estimate, not a census count, and includes enslaved people.
No. The report says the U.S. farm-worker headcount kept rising until about 1910, reaching 11.8 million, even as agriculture’s share of the workforce was declining.
How many people still work in agriculture worldwide?
The report cites an ILO estimate of 928 million agricultural workers in 2025, about one in four workers worldwide.
Does farming’s history prove AI will eliminate most jobs?
No. The report uses farming as a comparison, but it does not establish how many jobs AI will affect or on what timeline. Its suggestion that automation could affect up to 90% of a sector is identified by the author as a thesis, not a fact or confirmed forecast.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
