We're Asking the Wrong Question About AI and Jobs
Everyone's debating whether AI will steal our jobs, but this debate 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 paid. When technocrats 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 the current capitalistic system, not all valuable work.
The argument that AI will eliminate a significant number of jobs holds true only within our current global order.
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 exorbitantly more than a schoolteacher, even though teachers arguably add more tangible value to society.
One can argue that this is just a function of supply and demand. I totally agree, but with a crucial caveat: demand isn't determined by society's needs, but by capitalists' interests.
Capitalism, Community, and Unequal Development
I might sound like a naive socialist opposed to capitalism, but honestly, I'm not. I see genuine value in competition, free markets, and the independence that capitalism provides for people to pursue their interests. Yet we live in a complex and unequal world where certain communities are deemed worthier than others—a reality deeply connected to our fundamental humanity.
Human beings aren't driven solely by self-interest. We're inherently communal creatures who care for our friends, families, and broader communities, at least to some extent. This community-oriented nature means that good capitalists often do enrich the communities they're part of. The problem lies not in this impulse, but in its unequal application: communities are not equally served, and the welfare of some has consistently come at the expense of others.
Consider Walter Rodney's analysis in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, which documents the massive wealth transfer from Africa to Europe. This wasn't just historical extraction—it was a systematic process that fueled European development while simultaneously stunting African growth. Since individuals naturally prioritize their own communities over distant others, wealth accumulation in one region can occur at the serious expense of another, often without the beneficiaries fully recognizing the cost.
These dynamics persist at every level today. In the United States, stark disparities between zip codes reflect ongoing processes of unequal wealth distribution, not just historical legacies. The geography of opportunity remains deeply stratified, with some neighborhoods thriving while others languish just miles away.
India's recent experience offers another telling example. The prosperity of the Indian middle class is often attributed to the IT boom, which has indeed helped a segment of the population thrive. But from a broader historical perspective, this boom began primarily to serve Western capitalist interests through India's cheap labor, effectively making India the back office for global corporations. When we view it this way, we shouldn't be surprised when jobs migrate elsewhere—including potentially to AI systems. After all, if the work was originally structured to benefit certain Western capitalists, and they can find even cheaper options to replace human labor, of course they will pursue that path.
This isn't an indictment of capitalism itself, but rather a recognition that our economic systems operate within existing power structures and community loyalties where certain communities systemically oppress others through the tools of capitalism.
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 trickle 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 Work That Needs Doing
AI aside, there's enormous work needed to improve quality of life for most people in the world—work that exists far beyond the small populations already enjoying a good standard of living.
Take my hometown, Pudupattinam, a small coastal town in Tamil Nadu. The needs are everywhere: no proper waste management system, crumbling public infrastructure, no libraries, no safe playgrounds for children. These aren't abstract problems—they're daily realities that shape how people live, how children grow up, how communities function. And here's what strikes me: every one of these needs represents jobs. Good jobs for people. We need more waste management workers, infrastructure builders, librarians, playground designers and maintainers. We need teachers and community organizers, environmental scientists to restore our backwaters, urban planners to reimagine our public spaces, social workers to strengthen families, and healthcare workers to serve our aging population. This is meaningful employment that AI can't do, at least not yet. These are jobs with real, tangible value to the community—from the most essential services to the most aspirational community-building work.
But here's the fundamental catch: no one with the means 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—and the contrast couldn't be starker. There, the problems are entirely different. Basic needs aren't just met; they're solved well. Public infrastructure works great. There are accessible playgrounds everywhere, thoughtfully designed and well-maintained. My favorite discovery was the children's library, a dedicated space filled entirely with kids' books, where young minds could wander freely through stories and ideas. Of course, I can go on ranting about how bad the public transportation is and how expensive the healthcare facilities are. But we know what to blame it for.
The point is when your basic quality of life is already secured, your aspirations naturally shift upward. You start wanting human-like robots, commercial space travel, immersive virtual reality experiences. The hierarchy of needs plays out not just individually, but geographically and economically. There is a profound mismatch between where human labor is most needed and where capital flows. The work that could transform millions of lives remains undone not because we lack the human capacity to do it, but because those who control resources are solving entirely different problems. Enormous technological and financial resources pour into creating increasingly sophisticated solutions for people whose fundamental needs were solved long ago.
The irony is stark: in a world racing toward artificial intelligence and automation, some of our most pressing human needs remain unmet simply because they exist in the wrong economic geography.
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, with most communities living in conditions that could be far better. We desperately need improved quality of life for the majority of people—more teachers in classrooms, more caregivers, better public transportation, vibrant third spaces where people can gather, safer playgrounds, cleaner lakes for swimming, well-maintained sidewalks that won't break your ankle, and dense forests for hiking. If you're from a "developing" country, you need only step outside to list countless improvements your community needs for a better quality of life. While upgrading life quality once meant moving to more "developed" countries, the fault lines in capitalistic systems are now showing as even locals in those supposedly developed nations scramble for better livelihood opportunities. As more "developed" countries close their borders to immigrants, it's high time we focus on making our own local communities better places to live.
All of this requires work. This might sound like I am proposing everyone to take up manual and community-based labor. 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 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 improve the quality of life for the majority of people?"