If AI does the work, who gets the money?
This question matters at least as much as the question of jobs.
Two futures with the same technology.
AI raises productivity. People work less, earn enough and share in the progress.
AI raises productivity just as much. But a growing share of the returns goes to those who own the automated infrastructure.
Both are conceivable. Nothing in the technology decides between them.
Technological progress does not decide how its benefits are distributed. People do.
Who decides?
Who owns the models, the data centres, the agents?
Who sets the price when the alternative to a human costs a fraction?
Who gets the productivity gain: owners, customers, employees, the public?
Who still has bargaining power when an employer no longer depends on hiring?
These are not technical questions. They are political ones.
The labour share is not a law of nature.
How much of income goes to labour is the result of bargaining power, institutions and rules.
Automation shifts bargaining power. Whether that shows up in wages is decided by people: through tax law, competition law, collective agreements and ownership models.
Maybe you will never be fired because of AI.
Maybe your successor will simply never be hired.
“We didn't refill the position.”