Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Whether AI productivity gains create or destroy jobs depends on how much more consumers buy when prices fall. If demand is "inelastic," firms will fire workers. If it's "elastic," they might hire more. Economists lack sufficient data on this elasticity across sectors, making predictions highly uncertain.

Related Insights

Counterintuitively, making a task cheaper and easier with AI doesn't just eliminate jobs; it drastically increases the overall demand for that task. Just as Excel created more accountants, AI's efficiencies will lead to an explosion in the volume of work, creating new roles and opportunities.

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.

Contrary to fears of mass unemployment, AI will create massive deflationary pressure, making goods and services cheaper. This will allow people to support their lifestyles by working fewer hours and retiring earlier, leading to a labor shortage as new AI-driven industries simultaneously create new jobs.

Contrary to sensationalist interpretations, a high 'AI exposure' score for a job does not automatically mean displacement. Economists suggest it can mean the opposite, as AI acts as a complement. Highly exposed roles could see increased hiring, higher wages, and greater demand for complementary human skills, depending on demand elasticity.

Tech leaders cite Jevon's Paradox, suggesting AI efficiency will create more jobs. However, this historical model may not hold, as the speed of AI disruption outpaces society's ability to adapt, and demand for knowledge work isn't infinitely elastic.

The US economy is currently experiencing near-zero job growth despite typical 2% productivity gains. A significant increase in productivity driven by AI, without a corresponding surge in economic output, could paradoxically lead to outright job losses. This creates a scenario where positive productivity news could have negative employment consequences.

The labor market faces a dual threat. Weak demand, linked to tariffs and deglobalization, has already pushed job growth to zero. As AI adoption accelerates productivity, it could further suppress labor demand, potentially tipping the economy into a state of net job decline.

The fear of AI-driven mass unemployment is a classic economic fallacy. Like past technologies, AI is a tool that raises the marginal productivity of individual workers. More productive workers don't work less; they take on more ambitious projects and create new kinds of jobs, increasing the overall demand for labor.

Industries with fixed demand (accounting) will see job losses as AI handles the necessary workload. Sectors with expandable demand (software engineering) may absorb AI's productivity gains by creating vastly more output, thus preserving jobs for a longer period.

The Jevons Paradox observes that technologies increasing efficiency often boost consumption rather than reduce it. Applied to AI, this means while some jobs will be automated, the increased productivity will likely expand the scope and volume of work, creating new roles, much like typewriters ultimately increased secretarial work.

AI-Driven Job Creation Hinges on Consumer Demand Elasticity, a Largely Unknown Metric | RiffOn