We’ve all heard it: "Every disruptive innovation destroys some jobs but creates new ones."
But what if I told you this comforting theory is only partly true — and mostly misleading?
Let’s break it down.
Historically, yes, every major innovation — from the wheel to the steam engine, from assembly lines to the computer — has created new kinds of jobs. But here’s the fine print: the new jobs are often far fewer than the ones lost, and far harder to access.
The privilege to "upskill"
In theory, anyone can upskill and pivot to new roles. In practice? You need time, money, and the luxury to fail a few times — luxuries that only those with capital can afford. And capital isn’t just money; it’s social capital: knowing the right people, coming from the right family, having the freedom to learn Python while interning at a company where your mother’s friend is a VP.
The children of the wealthy and well-connected start this race with new running shoes and a head start. The rest are asked to run barefoot, often on broken glass, and then blamed for not keeping up.
History: A story of exclusions
The wheel (circa 3500 BC) revolutionized transport. It also made hundreds of human carriers and animal handlers redundant. Back then, small populations and agrarian societies meant fallback options were still possible.
The steam engine and the Industrial Revolution scaled up factories, but decimated handloom weavers and artisans across Europe and India. The Luddites weren’t irrational madmen; they were displaced workers. The British Parliament's solution? Hang them.
The computer revolution in the late 20th century wiped out countless clerical and manual jobs. Yes, IT and software boomed, but the net job creation paled in comparison to what was lost.
And in each case, the narrative was: “New opportunities are coming!”
What they didn’t say was: “But not for you — unless you can afford to retrain, relocate, and network over brunch.”
Sure, there were stories of a few lower-middle-class kids climbing the ladder. But if the 1990s taught me anything, it’s this: globalization in India marked the beginning of stark inequality wrapped in shiny packaging. That's probably when we started slipping away from manufacturing, which didn't succumb to hits of license raj, and set our trajectory to a glorified sweat shop which we now call "service industry".
Rarely in history has disruptive innovation made life easier for the working class — shorter hours and better conditions came from activists who built enough pressure to scare the powerful and their wealthy pals. Think of your grandparents, calmly working as accountants in a merchant's office, they even built a house with that job. Now think of you — bombarded by billionaires telling you to grind 70–100 hours a week and shaming you for spending time with your partner. Yachts, private jets, and billion-dollar inheritances are for them — bought with the sweat of people like you, burning out while clinging to a job you’re terrified to lose.
Enter AI: A different beast altogether
Unlike past disruptions, AI isn’t just automating repetitive tasks — it’s encroaching on decision-making, creativity, and analysis. Yes, some new jobs will appear: top-tier AI model architects, algorithm auditors, quantum computing ethicists (if you’ve never heard of them, that’s exactly the point).
But for everyone else — middle managers, coders, analysts, copywriters — AI doesn’t offer reskilling pathways; it offers a polite pink slip.
How does India deal with this?
Here’s where things get interesting (and alarming). India’s class divisions are already razor-sharp (with quickly disappearing middle class):
The subsidized class (dependent on government food and welfare schemes).
The middle class (too proud to take subsidies, perpetually budgeting).
The upper-middle class (the ones who pay income taxes, complain about taxes, and still order expensive gadgets on Amazon).
If Universal Basic Income (UBI) becomes necessary — and let’s face it, it probably will — the question is: where do we set the datum?
At subsistence level? The middle class won’t accept it.
Closer to middle-class consumption? That’s fantasy. No economy can support that with 1.4 billion and counting.
Also, let’s not fool ourselves — Indians who can afford private healthcare and private education already avoid government services like the plague. Remember the government response during COVID? Not exactly confidence-inspiring.
The semi-feudal, semi-capitalist tightrope
India’s economy runs on a strange cocktail of capitalism and feudal privilege. Wealth and opportunity are still mostly inherited, not earned. The AI wave will only amplify this. Those with financial and social capital will pivot to new roles or invest in the companies building AI enabled services. The rest? Well, they’ll be busy trying to learn digital marketing from YouTube and wondering how to monetize a cooking channel, creating cringe YouTube content that starts with "hello guys...".
So what’s next?
UBI alone won’t cut it. We need a more layered framework:
Subsidies are not charity anymore; they’ll become survival mandates.
Skilling programs need to move beyond “digital literacy” and aim at building entrepreneurial micro-economies. (Though I have little faith in our current education system to deliver this.)
Steep taxation on automation-based profits might be essential. If AI companies are raking in billions by replacing human labor, some of that must fund displaced workers’ livelihoods.
The comforting myth that “innovation creates jobs” is due for retirement. AI isn’t a steam engine; it’s a self-learning monster that needs neither coal nor labor. A handful of brilliant minds will thrive, while the rest will need more than TED Talks and LinkedIn webinars to survive.
When will our policymakers stop parroting the same old lines? Because if innovation keeps shrinking the job pie and concentrating it in the hands of a few, eventually even the ultra-rich will need to ask themselves: who’s left to buy their products?
Or worse — perhaps the future consumer class won’t be needed at all, and a dystopian world of a handful of owners served by a handful of servants will become the new normal.
Gone are the days when capitalism was at its zenith and Henry Ford supposedly said, “I need to pay my workers enough so they can buy the cars they make.”
