Why the argument that AI will take away most jobs deeply capitalistic

In the last couple of years, we've all heard the argument that AI is going to take away all the jobs. Within this debate, there are two camps: the optimists who believe AI will create more "meaningful" work while replacing mundane tasks, and the 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.

I think this entire argument is deeply capitalistic, overlooking the actual needs of the people. The problem is we're conflating the needs of the organizations within a capitalistic framework with the needs of the entire world.

First, let's dissect the Google's definition of job—a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid. I see Job to have two main components here: one- it's a piece of work and two- it's paid. When we say AI will take the jobs, we mean that there won't work that is paid. Within a capitalistic framework, we could say that jobs won't be there because theres's no work that the capitalists are willing to pay for but not there's no work at all.

Currently what counts as a job(aka work with economical value) is determined by the capitalists, but not necessarily by the inherent value of the work

Ambani example

Wealth is excessively concentrated among a small group of people, and they drive the job market. Many of us work jobs that serve the interests of a few individuals and corporations, even when that work doesn't add meaningful value to most communities. We do it anyway because that's where the money is.

Take my hometown of Pudupattinam. We have fundamental problems everywhere—no proper waste management, crumbling public infrastructure, no libraries, no safe playgrounds for kids. Solving these issues would create jobs. Actually, many, many jobs. These are jobs AI can't do, at least not yet. These are jobs with real tangible value to the community.

But here's the catch: no one is willing to pay for these jobs 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 your basic necessities are covered, your aspirations shift. You want human-like robots, moon travel, virtual reality experiences.

Our current corporate structure is shaped around solving the problems and aspirations of people with money—not the majority. And right now, it's primarily those jobs that are at stake. Tech jobs. Jobs that involve computers. AI can definitely take away those jobs.

But 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 more teachers in classrooms, better healthcare facilities, nicer public transportation, fun third spaces where people can hang out, better playgrounds, cleaner lakes to swim in, dense forests to hike through. I could go on and on.

All of this means work. Real jobs. Jobs that AI isn't capable of doing yet.

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?"