Forcing businesses to pay a mandated high wage for a low-value job creates a powerful incentive to automate that role, especially with the rise of AI. A better approach is bottom-up regulation that fosters a competitive labor market, forcing companies to increase wages naturally to attract talent.

Related Insights

The common fear of AI eliminating jobs is misguided. In practice, AI automates specific, often administrative, tasks within a role. This allows human workers to offload minutiae and focus on uniquely human skills like relationship building and strategic thinking, ultimately increasing their leverage and value.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell stated that after accounting for statistical anomalies, "job creation is pretty close to zero." He directly attributes this to CEOs confirming that AI allows them to operate with fewer people, marking a major official acknowledgment of AI's deflationary effect on the labor market.

AI makes tasks cheaper and faster. This increased efficiency doesn't reduce the need for workers; instead, it increases the demand for their work, as companies can now afford to do more of it. This creates a positive feedback loop that may lead to more hiring, not less.

The narrative of AI destroying jobs misses a key point: AI allows companies to 'hire software for a dollar' for tasks that were never economical to assign to humans. This will unlock new services and expand the economy, creating demand in areas that previously didn't exist.

Instead of fearing job loss, focus on skills in industries with elastic demand. When AI makes workers 10x more productive in these fields (e.g., software), the market will demand 100x more output, increasing the need for skilled humans who can leverage AI.

While high-profile layoffs make headlines, the more widespread effect of AI is that companies are maintaining or reducing headcount through attrition rather than active firing. They are leveraging AI to grow their business without expanding their workforce, creating a challenging hiring environment for new entrants.

Companies are preemptively slowing hiring for roles they anticipate AI will automate within two years. This "quiet hiring freeze" avoids the cost of hiring, training, and then laying off staff. It is a subtle but powerful leading indicator of labor market disruption, happening long before official unemployment figures reflect the shift.

Fears of AI-driven mass unemployment overlook basic capitalism. Any company that fires staff to boost margins will be out-competed by a rival that uses AI to empower its workforce for greater output and market share, ensuring AI augments jobs rather than eliminates them.

Job seekers use AI to generate resumes en masse, forcing employers to use AI filters to manage the volume. This creates a vicious cycle where more AI is needed to beat the filters, resulting in a "low-hire, low-fire" equilibrium. While activity seems high, actual hiring has stalled, masking a significant economic disruption.

The real inflection point for widespread job displacement will be when businesses decide to hire an AI agent over a human for a full-time role. Current job losses are from human efficiency gains, not agent-based replacement, which is a critical distinction for future workforce planning.