We're Asking the Wrong Question About AI and Jobs

Draft

Everyone's debating whether AI will steal our jobs, but this conversation reveals more about our economic system than about technology. What assumptions are we making? And what aren't we seeing?

In recent years, there's been a dominant debate about whether AI will eliminate most jobs. Within this debate, there are two camps: optimists who believe AI will simply replace current jobs with different ones, and pessimists who worry about the economic fallout when people lose their livelihoods. But both camps share the same premise—that AI will eliminate jobs wholesale.
This entire argument is deeply embedded in our current capitalistic framework, conflating the needs of a small set of wealthy individuals and communities with the needs of the entire world, while overlooking what people actually need and perpetuating an unjust economic model.

What Counts as a "Job"?

Let's start with Google's definition of a job: a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid. Jobs have two main characteristics: they involve work, and they're compensated. When tech leaders like Dario Amodei predict a "white collar bloodbath"—meaning most entry-level white-collar positions will disappear—they're only referring to work deemed worth paying for within our current capitalistic system, not all valuable work.

The argument that AI will eliminate a significant number of jobs holds true only within our existing framework.

The Capitalist Lens on Work Value

In a capitalistic system, job availability is predetermined by capitalists' interests. The economic value of work isn't derived from its societal benefit, but from how well it serves those with capital. We see this everywhere: a software engineer developing addictive social media apps earns more than a school teacher, even though teachers arguably add more tangible value to society.

Some argue this reflects supply and demand. I agree, but with a crucial caveat: demand isn't determined by society's needs, but by capitalists' interests.

The Global Inequality of Work

I might sound like a naive socialist who is against capitalism. To be honest, I am not. I see value in competition, free markets, and the independence that the capitalism provides for people to pursue their interests. But at the same time, we live in a complex and unequal world where certain communities are considered worthier than others and this is deeply connected to our humanity. The human need to cater to our immediate community. We are not just driven by our self-interests but also by the interests of the people around us. We care for our friends, families, and communities at large—at least to some extent. So a good capitalist does enrich the communities they are part of. But the problem is that communities are not equally served, and the welfare of certain communities has been coming at the expense of others. For instance, the book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa shows the mass wealth transfer from Africa to Europe, leading to the development of Europe but at the expense of Africa. An individual is more concerned with the well-being of their community than others. So the accumulation of wealth in one community can happen at the serious expense of other. Things like this are pervasive at every level. In the US, there are huge disparities between zip codes because of the unequal distribution of wealth. These are not just histories of the past but rather ongoing socio-economic processes. Take India for example—the recent prosperity of the Indian middle class is attributed to the IT boom. While it has helped a small portion of the entire Indian population thrive, from a historical macro perspective, one could see that it began primarily to serve the interests of capitalists because of India's cheap labor, making India the IT back office. So naturally, we shouldn't be surprised if jobs are lost, especially in countries like India, because we are already primarily doing work for the benefit of certain capitalists in the West, and if they can find cheaper options to replace the same labor done by humans, of course they will go for it.

The Infrastructure Gap

Another important factor that has to be taken into account is that the tech industry in the west developed on a foundation of businesses that first solved local problems. Early companies focused on serving their immediate communities—local banks for local customers, regional manufacturers for nearby markets, neighborhood services for residents. This local-first approach meant that as these businesses grew and generated wealth, that prosperity directly benefited the communities where the founders lived and worked. Capitalists derived value by addressing problems they themselves experienced or witnessed in their daily lives. This model was reinforced by colonialism, as wealth extracted from colonies flowed back to these local communities, providing capital for further local development and creating a virtuous cycle of community-focused growth.

But colonized countries like India were already late to this game. First, because of all the exploitation, we were already lacking resources to cater effectively to the local population, which led us to constantly look for outside aid to even cater to our basic needs. Then, with liberalization, even without the infrastructure and facilities to support our basic needs, we started serving the needs of Western capitalists through the IT boom. While this led to some transfer of wealth and created an illusion of prosperity for a small set of people, it didn't really trickled down to improve lives for all. This uneven distribution has given rise to a small class of prosperous individuals while the needs of the larger population still remain unmet. This explains why Indian public infrastructure is so lacking because we haven't just focused on it. Further, the rise of the affluent class has just led to the rise of more gated communities as a way to bypass the shortcomings.

The Real Work That Needs Doing

AI aside, except for small populations with already a good quality of life, there's enormous work needed to improve quality of life for most people in the world.

Take my hometown of Pudupattinam. We have fundamental problems everywhere—no proper waste management, non-existent public infrastructure, no libraries, no safe playgrounds for kids. This is work that can only be done by people—actually, lots and lots of people. This is work AI can't do, at least not yet. This is work with real tangible value to the community.

But here's the catch: no one is willing to pay for this work because the people with money aren't affected by these problems.

I spent two years in Palo Alto—the land of tech billionaires. There, the problems are entirely different. Basic needs are met. Public infrastructure works. There are accessible playgrounds everywhere, and my favorite children's library sits right there, dedicated entirely to kids' books. When the basic quality of life is already good, your aspirations shift. You want human-like robots, moon travel, virtual reality experiences.

The Real Question

Our current capitalistic structure is shaped around solving problems and aspirations of a small set of ultra-wealthy capitalists and communities—not the majority. Right now, primarily those jobs that were serving them are at stake. AI may or may not replace those jobs. I think we should care less about that.

Here's the reality: there's still so much work to be done in the world. Most communities live in conditions that could be far better. We need a better quality of life for a majority people. We need more teachers in classrooms, better healthcare facilities, better public transportation, fun third spaces where people can hang out, better playgrounds, cleaner lakes to swim in, paved sidewalks that don't break your ankle, dense forests to hike through. I could go on and on. If you are from a "developing" country, I am sure you just need to step out to list a zillion things that could be improved for a better quality of life.

All of this requires work. This might sound like I am proposing everyone to take up manual and community-based labour. No, I am not. I am just proposing we need to start focusing on the work that could improve everyone's quality of life instead of the work that certain greedy capitalists deem valuable. These jobs could take any form and I am sure AI could help in this work.

Maybe the question isn't "Will AI take away all the jobs?"

Maybe the question worth asking is: "How are we going to pay for the jobs that can actually make lives better for the majority of people?"