No Mercy / No Malice: Apocalypse No

Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with it doesn't different

apps that don't talk to each other. Introducing Odo, it's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, Odo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost.

“That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch.”

So why not you? Try Odo for free at Odo.com, that's OdoO.com. Support for the show comes from Odo.

Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with it doesn't different apps

that don't talk to each other. Introducing Odo, it's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, and more. And the best part, Odo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost.

That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you?

“Try Odo for free at Odo.com, that's OdoOO.com.”

For $2.99, I bring you to a market with sushi. Okay, and for $1.99, I'll give you a small ice cream. For the $1.99, I'll give you an ice cream. Pretty good? Then try the snack time-sushi box, $225 for $2.99.

Or mochi sandwich ice. $8.99 for $1.99. That's good for all the price. Now in your opinion, all the good for all. And this is no mercy, no malice.

AI could transform society, but fears of a future defined by jobless growth are vastly overstated. Apocalypse? No. As read by George Han. Few brands have fallen further faster in the past 18 months than

America and AI. Last week, I wrote about the reckoning I see coming for America. This week, let's talk about a reckoning I don't believe will happen. The AI job apocalypse. Every generation gets its machines will take your job panic.

This one just comes with better PR and a bigger balance sheet. The AI job apocalypse isn't data-driven, it's narrative-driven. Engineering by people who profit when you're scared, fear is the product. Capital is the outcome.

“I believe that similar to every other technological innovation in history, AI will inspire”

job destruction that will result in an increase in productivity, profits, reinvestment, and wait for it, jobs. The relevant question isn't how many jobs will lose or gain, it's whether the velocity of disruption will overwhelm that period of adaptation and recovery. There are three scenarios.

The AI bubble bursts, AI delivers as promised, but on a slower timeline, and AI disruption comes faster than the market can adapt and respond. Recently anthropic CEO Dario Amode warned that 50% of entry-level tech, legal, consulting, and finance jobs will be completely wiped out within five years. Last year he told Axios the white-collar bloodbath could spike unemployment to 20%.

In 2023, when the AI narrative felt more optimistic, Elon Musk said, "There will come a point where no job is needed, AI will be able to do everything." In 2021, a year before launching ChatGPT, Sam Altman wrote, "The price of many kinds of

labor will fall towards zero once sufficiently powerful AI joins the workforce."

Translation, AI is an extinction-level event for workers, according to those who benefit most from AI being an extinction-level event. Their story is as old as the industrial revolution.

winning economist Robert Schiller, argued that fears about machines replacing human labor

contributed to 19th-century economic downturns. Later, science fiction reinforced the narrative, feeding the incorrect belief that automation caused the great depression. Fears about the rise of computers exacerbated the double-dip recession of the early 1980s. The danger, according to Schiller, isn't labor disruption, but the narrative's negative

feedback loop. The economic hardships created by a temporary recession or depression are mistaken for the job-destroying effects of the machines, which creates pessimistic economic responses as self-fulfilling prophecies.

“I believe we have the makings for the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy Schiller warned about,”

as AI-washing masks inflation, tariffs, and overhiring. Consider tech workers, the supposed canaries in the coal mine.

Net technology employment in the US grew from 8.7 million in 2020 to 9.6 million in 2023

and has remained flat since then. Not great, but by no means apocalyptic. Oracle, which laid off 18% of its workforce in March and is projecting negative cash flow until 2030, isn't capturing AI-efficiencies, it's trading people for chips. Last month's announcement that Meta would cut 10% of its workforce fed AI anxiety, but

in reality Meta is returning to its 2021 headcount.

“Microsoft's 7% lay off target would reduce its headcount to 2022 levels, but even after”

those cuts, Microsoft would still have 47% more workers than it did the year before the

pandemic. Since XAI's 2023 founding, its headcount has grown to an estimated 5,000 people. In March, Musk announced that Tesla would increase headcount, adding the output per human at Tesla is going to get nutty high. The following month, Tesla laid off 10% of its workforce due to poor sales.

What we're seeing isn't the prelude to a job apocalypse, but a low-higher, low-fire labor market where unemployment rates for tech workers and everyone else are converging around the Fed's target rate of 4%.

“Catastrophizing is a narrative device the hyperscaler's deploy to divert capital flows”

to them and justify their capex. Every new technology in history has gone through a similar arc of creative destruction. I don't see why AI is any different. As a economist, Joseph Shumpeter observed in 1942, economic progress in a capitalist society means turmoil.

So far, the turmoil attributed to AI has been more hot air than hard data. Last fall, I wrote that America is one big bet on AI, as the Mag10 account for 40% of the S&P's market cap. Since Chatchee PT launched in November 2022, AI-related stocks have registered 76% of the S&P 500's return, 87% of earnings growth, and 90% of capital spending growth. If AI sneezes, the rest of the economy will catch a cold, IE plunge into recession.

Based on Schiller's analysis, we likely blame AI. Nevertheless, according to Ernie Tedeski, Chief Economist at Stripe and former Chief Economist for the White House Council of Economic Advisors, layoffs come in recessionary bursts, rather than the moment technology renders a profession obsolete. This spread displacement of travel agents didn't happen immediately during the dot-com boom,

to desky-wrote. Rather, it was the bust that drove displacement. When the economy recovered, however, professions rendered obsolete by technology didn't return to pre-down-turn levels, but the profession doesn't entirely disappear either.

the broader labor market, suggesting that as jobs gradually disappear, more workers pivot.

“Maybe there isn't a bubble. Or if there is, maybe it doesn't burst. Babbles are visible”

only in retrospect. Assuming the velocity of recovery outpaces the disruption, new efficiencies will lead to increased productivity, resulting in rising margins, funding new businesses, employing people in jobs that didn't previously exist, expanding growth. This is Jevon's paradox. When a resource becomes dramatically cheaper to use, we don't use less of it. We find a million new uses for it. If that sounds painless, keep listening.

In March, anthropic published the most detailed empirical map yet of AI's penetration into the labor market. Finding that in business and finance occupations, AI could theoretically

“cover 94% of tasks tied with occupations in computers and math. Pain is on the horizon,”

as tasks that can be automated will be automated during the next downturn. But the task

professionals perform have never been fixed, according to Eldar Maximov, an accounting

professor at Arizona State University. After the release of the first electronic spreadsheet in 1979, people predicted accountants would face mass unemployment. Instead, after adjusting for population growth, the number of accountants increased 4x over the next 40 years. In every major occupational group that adopted computers heavily, employment grew faster than in groups that did not. Maximov wrote, "Computers eliminated specific tasks within

jobs, but the resulting cost reductions created so much new demand that the occupations expanded overall." Looking at AI, he concludes that the future of every knowledge profession hinges on a single question. "Is human demand for analysis oversight and assurance elastic?"

“I believe it is. Case in point, computer programmers, they're coding less and thinking bigger,”

according to journalist Clive Thompson, who interviewed more than 70 programmers in Silicon Valley and at small firms across the US. As he noted, a coder is now more like an architect than a construction worker. One executive Thompson interviewed, "Put it this way." I have never met a team

at Google who says, "You know, I'm out of good ideas." The answer is always, "The list of things

I would like to do is nine miles longer than what we can pull off." But as the cost of execution drops, new demand will likely come from areas that previously didn't have access to programmers. Several developers suggested that the number of software jobs might actually grow. Thompson wrote, "An untold number of small firms around the country would love to have their own custom-made software, but were never big enough to hire, say, a five-person programmer team necessary to produce it."

The most frightening scenario is one in which AI disruption outpaces recovery velocity hits every sector simultaneously and encounters little pushback from policymakers. But this ignores that societal tumult usually isn't due to unemployment, but people who are working yet still hungry, resulting in a loss of economic dignity and narratives to a sign blame. If it sounds as if we're already there, trust your instincts. Inside Silicon Valley, the vibe is bleak. As Jasmine's

son wrote in the New York Times, "Most people I know in the AI industry think the median person is screwed and they have no idea what to do about it."

Worst, many say that artificial general intelligence, a technology that may never materialize,

will create a permanent underclass. That belief is fueling a last chopper out of psychon mentality, where people see a limited window to build wealth before AI and robotics fully

indexed on the rapid advances in AI capabilities while completely ignoring everything else.

“AI's popularity is correlated to wealth, with only those earning more than $200,000 per year”

viewing AI as a net positive. That's not a reflection on AI, but yet another signal that the

incumbents, the old and wealthy, have successfully hoarding opportunity. In other words,

“the AI jobs freak out is the latest act in America's ongoing wealth inequality drama.”

The genico-efficient is how economists measure inequality. Zero indicates everyone has exactly the

same wealth. A score of 1.0 means one individual owns everything. In the US,

“we are higher than 0.8. About the level seen when the French began separating people from their heads.”

The real disruption won't come from AI, but from the public watching arsonists sell smoke detectors and call it innovation. The AI job apocalypse isn't an economic forecast. It's a marketing strategy. We're not witnessing the end of work. We're watching the monetization of fear. Life is so rich.