No one knows whether AI will trigger a white-collar jobpocalypse. The loudest warnings still come from people building and selling the technology, whose predictions often double as hype-mongering or cover for unrelated cost-cutting with investor-friendly language. Think-tank and analyst forecasts are no less vertiginous.
The honest answer is that current data gaps leave us all guessing.
However, we do know the script that is already creeping up as displacement begins to trickle: “retraining,” “upskilling,” and the hollow language used to make dislocation politically palatable. We cannot allow it to become the next comforting lie, or a way to sell the future while abandoning the people forced to live through it.
Illustration: Yusha
Policymakers and tech leaders should not wait for mass disruptions. They should also stop pretending retraining is much more than a slogan. The US already ran this experiment after deindustrialization. Manufacturing losses were relatively concentrated, but the damage spread through families, communities and politics for generations. The payoff from the retraining policy during this era was weak at best.
The optimistic case is that AI will eventually create new jobs we cannot yet imagine, just as past tech revolutions did. Howerver, we will not get there if policymakers ignore what Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Molly Kinder calls the “messy middle”: the period between today’s rocky AI adoption and the promised land of post-AGI abundance. Tech leaders love the utopian pitch, but the public may revolt long before it arrives. Retraining policy, Kinder notes, “has been one of the worst-performing categories of labor market intervention.”
The scale of potential labor exposure, meanwhile, dwarfs deindustrialization. Bloomberg Economics says that 27% of workers in advanced economies, more than 120 million people, are likely to be “meaningfully affected by AI.” That does not mean all will be displaced, but it points to vast potential disruption.
Business leaders are already reaching for retraining. Nearly a quarter of CEOs in a recent survey said that more than half of their workforce will need to be “upskilled.” A banking chief went viral for his comments last month about AI replacing “lower-value human capital.” After the backlash, he apologized and invoked the familiar promise of reskilling.
Yet what does that mean? Too often, the answer is maddeningly vague. A recent analysis from human-resources consulting firm Randstad describes the future skill set as “AI fluency” plus “uniquely human capabilities” such as emotional intelligence, creativity, problem solving, critical thinking and ethical judgment. The first part is obvious; workers need to know how to use AI tools. The second part sounds like a list of desirable traits, not a transition plan for laid-off workers.
Inside the tech industry, the brazenly arrogant default answers are “universal basic income” or “learn a trade.” Blue-collar work may be less exposed to generative AI, by Anthropic PBC and OpenAI’s own estimates. However, neither answer is complete. UBI requires faith that policymakers will build redistribution that does not just reduce citizens to consumers. “Learn a trade” carries the same echoes of “learn to code” — a half-hearted retraining mantra turned weaponized meme that now looks grimly ironic as software engineering becomes one of the jobs most exposed to AI. It also assumes society will suddenly pay carpenters, butchers, plumbers or house cleaners far more than it does now.
People are not going to do nothing. In China, the OpenClaw mania we saw earlier this year was as much a story about scrambling to reskill as it was about agentic software adoption. In the US, anxiety is taking a more oppositional form, marked by communities protesting data centers. Both are versions of the same instinct, as people see the future being built around them and try to regain agency.
Another hopeful case borrows from the University of Chicago economist Alex Imas’ influential essay asking “What will be scarce?” If AI makes cognitive tasks cheap, the idea goes, human relationships will become more valuable. Education, eldercare, social work and “relational sector” jobs requiring a human element should then command a premium.
Perhaps, but those are precisely the sectors that many societies undervalue. If policymakers want to turn them into the well-paid work of the future, they must invest now in more funding for care and education work, more apprenticeships, stronger career ladders and a broader effort to raise the wages and dignity attached to these jobs. It also assumes that many people will be laid off first. Wages are unlikely to magically rise because out-of-work coders or marketers enter the field.
Any serious retraining policy must also give labor a real seat at the table. It is lazy to assume workers are anti-technology. Union leaders often say that if technology makes jobs safer and easier, workers will support it. What they want is a say in how it is used.
Ultimately, the transition period needs more than the false comfort of reskilling. It needs real-time data tracking where jobs are being augmented or destroyed. From there, policymakers can focus on transition insurance, targeted public investments in care work and education, or a plan for sharing the productivity gains if AI abundance ever arrives.
Workers can adapt; people are endlessly resourceful. The risk is that “reskilling” becomes the excuse that makes mass unemployment politically palatable and, basically, the victim’s fault. If it is the bridge to an AI future, it must lead somewhere. Otherwise, it is just a signpost at the edge of a cliff.
Catherine Thorbecke is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia tech. Previously she was a tech reporter at CNN and ABC News. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Taiwan’s economic momentum, driven by demand for artificial intelligence (AI) products, remains strong, with booming demand for advanced semiconductors, servers and key components. In the first quarter, GDP expanded 14.55 percent year-on-year, the second consecutive quarter of double-digit percentage growth and accelerating from the 12.95 percent expansion in the previous quarter, the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) reported on Friday. Net exports remained the dominant driver of growth, contributing 10.33 percentage points to Taiwan’s GDP growth in the first quarter. That came as exports rose 35.76 percent year-on-year in the first quarter, outpacing 26.34 percent growth in imports, the
RSS