BURNING CHROME | AI didn’t kill the job. Governance did
There is a comforting lie embedded in every corporate slide deck about artificial intelligence: that job disruption is a future problem, and that reskilling will naturally catch up once the dust settles. The World Economic Forum’s latest futures-of-work modeling quietly dismantles that myth.
The future has already arrived. It is just unevenly governed.
What the report lays bare is not an impending “AI takeover,” but a structural failure of institutions to keep pace with how automation is being deployed. Employers are no longer automating edges. They are embedding machine learning into planning, hiring, evaluation, logistics and creative workflows—functions once assumed to be safely human. This is not augmentation by accident. It is redesign by intent.
The dangerous fiction is that this transition is neutral.
AI does not flatten inequality. It sharpens it.
In every scenario the report models, the dividing line is not between humans and machines, but between workers who can negotiate with systems and those who are managed by them. Skills, yes—but also bargaining power, access to retraining and whether institutions treat labor as an asset or a cost center.
This is where the Global South should be paying attention.
In ASEAN economies like the Philippines, automation is arriving through imported systems, not locally governed frameworks. Firms adopt tools trained elsewhere, optimized for efficiency metrics that do not account for labor precarity, informal work or weak safety nets. The result is a familiar pattern: productivity gains without wage growth, digitization without dignity.
The report’s four futures are not predictions. They are warnings.
In the “good” futures, governments intervene early—standardizing credentials, funding midcareer retraining, regulating algorithmic management and treating compute access as strategic infrastructure. In the bad ones, labor is told to “adapt” while institutions retreat, leaving workers to compete individually against systems designed at planetary scale.
What stands out is how little this is framed as a moral issue. The report is blunt: If governance fails, polarization follows. Talent shortages coexist with unemployment. Workers cycle through short-term gigs while firms complain they cannot hire. This contradiction is not accidental—it is systemic.
AI did not break the labor market. It exposed how thin its social contracts already were.
For countries still catching up industrially, the risk is not job loss alone, but permanent deskilling—being locked into low-value roles while decision-making, design and ownership consolidate elsewhere. Automation without local capability-building turns nations into users, not participants.
The only real question left is whether societies plan for that future—or let it arrive as another imported system they never had a say in designing.
————————————————————————-
WE ARE 10 YEARS OLD! TEN YEARS OF TECHSABADO, IMAGINE THAT.
WATCH TECHSABADO ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
WATCH OUR OTHER YOUTUBE CHANNELS:
PLEASE LIKE our FACEBOOK PAGE and SUBSCRIBE to OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL.
PLEASE LIKE our FACEBOOK PAGE and SUBSCRIBE to OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL.
