One day, AI will be able to provide midwit analyses like this.

Until that day, we can just say what we all know: 1) AI will absolutely decimate white-collar office jobs in the future, 2) composition of the workplace will change (more women will elect not to participate), and 3) we're in a capital boom where both successful and incompetent spending on AI occurred.

I suspect the reason people are hesitant to admit the obviousness of the future reality of white collar job loss (or replacement at the very least) is ego.

And I suspect that will be the last thing to finally implode, with interesting and positive social consequences.

▲

habinero 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> 2) composition of the workplace will change (more women will elect not to participate)

What? Why on earth would it specifically hit women?

	▲	abernard1 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Have you not been present in our recent two-decade credentialed make-believe economy? The one that puts government in the place of a father? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelletravis/2026/01/29/women... Edit: "Based on this grid, what is the most Democratic voting group in America? It’s voters with postgraduate degrees but lower-to-middle household incomes of $30K to $60K per year." https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-dsa-sweet-spot-highly-educa...
	▲	Mezzie 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Setting aside OP's right wing nonsense, I (as a lefty woman) can see it but from another perspective: as white collar work becomes harder to get, that will drive wages down and make work conditions worse. (supply and demand). So if/when they have children, the odds of them making enough to cover daycare will go down. Additionally, as working becomes worse and worse, anyone who has an exit path will take it. We'll see an uptick in the lumpenproletariat in the Marxist sense of the term (I'm not a Marxist, but the term is useful) as well. Straight and bisexual women have more of an ability to opt out of capitalism directly than straight and bisexual men do in broad generalities. Additionally, a lot of the resistance to a more traditional family setup on the women's part is because it places us in a precarious situation where, if the person you depend on financially is abusive, you're screwed. If work gets to a point where most employment involves abusive conditions, it's a better deal to chain yourself to a potentially abusive husband than a potentially abusive employer. The legal system is greatly biased towards an employer and the odds of help or redress are low. If you have to pick an abusive situation, pick the one where it's concentrated in one person and you can poison him if you need out. Your husband can have a 'heart attack'. Much harder to pull that off against a megacorp. In short: the opt out/traditional path is likely to become a better deal, and selfishness will always win.