> In strong-bundle occupations… AI improves performance inside the job, but does not remove the human from the bundle," the authors argue.

At least in software engineering, AI can't replace the accountability that only humans can provide, but it multiplies the surface area that a human is accountable for, driving up the work demands on worker in one dimension while it lowers the demand for actual coding. On balance, it's more work down with far fewer people.

> It also squares with what we're seeing so far. AI is reshaping jobs, not wiping them out. Tasks move around, productivity may go up, yet employment and hours haven't shifted much – at least yet. In many cases, the bundle is still holding.

AI will supercharge the decades-old trend of productivity growth dramatically outpacing both employment and compensation, as the returns go primarily to the owners of capital.

The result: a lack of job growth while productivity still rises, and also stagnant wages as workers lose the labor market leverage.

I don't understand how this isn't just an argument for confiscation by the masses.

My employer pays for the tokens, does the brown bags to disseminate learnings, encourages 20% time and hackathons. Of course they don't also hand me a bag of cash for no reason.

Why would anyone deploy capital not seeking a return?

i guess tech workers should have unionized when they had the chance; too bad everyone thought they were too special.

Boy howdy does the future look bleak in this lens.