Will AI Steal Your Job or Create New Ones?

 Is AI just hype, or is it truly reshaping the job market? In this episode, we dig into how artificial intelligence could transform the American workforce, exploring whether it's a helpful tool or a disruptor poised to replace human jobs. From fast-food robots to the ripple effects of declining birth rates, we connect the dots on the future of employment. Learn why some tasks are irreplaceable, how historical tech shifts echo today’s changes, and why trust still matters in hiring—even as remote work rises. Tune in for an honest, no-nonsense conversation on staying relevant in a rapidly changing world. 

Chapters

• 0:00 The Debate on AI’s Role in the Workforce
• 0:56 AI and Job Disruption: Lessons from History
• 2:23 Non-Replacement Birth Rates and Workforce Challenges
• 6:14 Robots in Fast Food: Cost vs. Human Jobs
• 7:25 Staying Irreplaceable: What AI Can't Do
• 9:03 Trust, Cheating, and the Hiring Process

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

I think the jury is still out whether artificial intelligence is a brand new toy, that's cool, or if it really is so disruptive that we need to be concerned about Skynet, it taking over the world, and I just don't know yet. What I do know is that any time in a system, there's a new technology, it does take jobs from people. When they invented kerosene, nobody needed to hunt as many whales for for a while. And so one product replaced another. So the whalers kind of went out of business, the whale shipbuilders went out of business. The pain makers kind of went out of business. I mean, all of these different industries went out of business because somebody figured out how to make kerosene from oil. Yeah, people are going to be losing their jobs because I is going to take those jobs. But we still have more people in the world now and more people in the workforce. What I will do is it will create other jobs.

Speaker 2: 1:05

Let's talk a little bit about AI and how you believe I might impact the future job market, hiring, firing, different jobs and do you think that a decline in American birth rates and the future workforce is contributing to a faster adoption of AI?

Speaker 1: 1:22

I think that AI makes boring tasks faster and easier. That's what's doing it. And, back to system one. System two people like to be on autopilot. People don't it? It's it's physically effortful. You burn calories when you think, okay, so your brain occupies between 3 to 5% of your body mass, but consumes 20 to 25% of the fuel in your food. So the nutrients and the calories get burned up by your brain. And so your brain is inefficiency seeking, organ. So it's going to it's going to go on cruise control when it can in order to save fuel. So what I does is it offloads the boring, high concentration tasks that are repeatable. It offloads those to artificial intelligence. And so that's why I think people are doing it in terms of the birth rate. We've really got a problem with non replacement birth rates that as our population, if you if you look at all the other westernized western company countries, and including China, we see a, a lower than replacement rate population. And if you don't have people being born who are going to grow up, get educated and take those jobs, will eventually who's going to get stuff done, and who economically is going to create the wealth to support people in their later years as this large group of people goes through the population and now are not they they need additional assistance to run their lives. And if there aren't enough people to do that, you know, we currently don't have robots. We're going to take care of the elderly. I mean, it's just it's not there yet and it may never be there. That's a separate problem. Is is non replacement birth rates. How does it affect our workforce. I think the jury is still out. Whether artificial intelligence is a is a brand new toy or that's cool. Or if it really is so disruptive that we need to be concerned about Skynet and it taking over the world. And I just don't know yet. What I do know is that any time in a system, there's a new technology, it does take jobs from people, you know, when they invented kerosene, nobody needed to hunt as many whales for for whale oil. And so one product replaced another. So the whalers kind of went out of business, the whale shipbuilders went out of business. The harpoon makers kind of went out of business. I mean, all of these different industries went out of business because somebody figured out how to make kerosene from oil. Yeah, people are going to be losing their jobs because I is going to take those jobs. But we still have more people in the world now and more people in the workforce. What I will do is it will create other jobs. The same thing happened 20, 20 years ago when they introduced robotics on a on assembly lines, assembly line. Workers lost their jobs. And now and again, it's not a 1 to 1. The guy who lost his job on the assembly line didn't get another job. It really is bad for him. But on the whole the society, more people became employed in different ways. So yes, there will absolutely be hardship for the people who lose their jobs and we'll either have to retrain or take jobs that are not as profitable. And that is hard. Down the road there will be more jobs, there will be more, economic growth because of this, new technology. Well, let's look at, fast food. There are robots now that can make hamburgers. They're not widely adopted in the United States. But if you look at the cost of what a robot who will work without any breaks and is not subject to labor laws can work constantly without error to make burgers, and you don't have to worry about him him worry about it falling off, or getting grumpy or fighting with the customers. And you don't have to worry about lawsuits because of somebody's upset about their employment practice. Suddenly the cost of the of an employee over the hour, or a number of employees, you know, dozens and dozens over the lifespan of the robot, it becomes cheaper to use the robot than people. So that will be replaced.

Speaker 2: 6:37

What would you say to somebody who is facing a potential replacement in that way? What kind of advice would you give someone like that?

Speaker 1: 6:47

I would work really hard at figuring out what are the what are the characteristics that I have in my job that are not replaceable by a machine. I work with a lot of financial planners, and about 5 to 7 years ago, there was a real concern about what was called a robo envi advisor or artificial intelligence will then manage people's, funds and, for a subset of the market, a subset of the market will be very content to have a machine. I do their stocks. They'll be fine with that. But the value that financial planners bring is not man. It is practical psychology. How do they calm people down who are freaking out because their portfolio went down? Yeah. And so I will solve that problem for a small subset a small subset. It'll be fine. Siri, help me feel better about my stock portfolio going down. And they'll be okay with that. But most people, they're going to want another person to talk them through that. So if you've lost your job I would say, okay, what are the non replaceable qualities that I have that artificial intelligence a robot can't replace. And I would say it's largely the factor of trust. It isn't skills, it isn't knowledge, it's trust. And any time there is a trusted relationship where trust is the the engine that drives that economy or that drives that, profitability, then that's the place that it it's going to be tough to replace people.

Speaker 2: 8:48

Fox business recently published this article about how roughly 7 in 10 job seekers lie or cheat during the hiring process. Talk about trust and how important it is. Why do you believe this is the case and how does that impact those job seekers.

Speaker 1: 9:03

If there is not a long standing relationship, if it is completely transactional, yes, absolutely. Cheating and lying will get you a short term benefit. If it is a long term relationship, cheating and lying will in the long term be costly. There's a there's a little proverb I tell which is police are like padlocks. The honest people don't need them. They help the easily tempted and the bad guys don't give a damn it. And so what we're talking about is not the honest or the bad guys. We're talking about the easily tempted. And I think what this, what this, what this study suggests, if it's accurate, is that 70% of the people are easily tempted. If there aren't, if there aren't natural hurdles between you and an outcome and and cheating or lying is easy, it's undetectable and there are no consequences. Yeah, people are really tempted there. There was a study where they had I can't remember, it was cookies or candies in this, in this lunch room, in this break room. And they kept disappearing, you know, and there was you're supposed to put money in a jar if you're going to take a snack. Well, they added eyeballs to the to the tip jar or the donation jar. Not not like real eyeballs, but just like those googly eyes that they just pasted on. And when the googly eyes were pasted on the the donation jar, donations went up and the consequences people said the interpretation of it was when people believe they're being watched, when they're being monitored, they will behave in pro-social ways, which is why even googly eyes pasted on, you know, a donation cup will increase donations because people are, in a subconscious way, primed to think, okay, I could be being watched. And so they donate if there is no consequence, then the easily tempted are going to be tempted and, one of the subtexts of this, this article, is that these are remote. So they're taking assessments remotely, they're being interviewed remotely. And so there isn't that face to face, eye to eye interaction. It's it's remote, which is more convenient, but it loses so much of that human connection that makes us feel like, okay, I ought to behave because this is a real person. And so if if employers want to reduce that cheating, it's not their responsibility. Ultimately, the person is doing the cheating or line. It's their responsibility. Yeah. But if they want to make it in such a way that it's less tempting, then go in person, have the interview in person. And there's a lot that happens in human interaction in person that creates that trust relationship. And so if if I'm having a transaction with you and I'm never going to see you again, a human being is far more likely to lie and cheat. If I meet you in person. And I think I'm going to have an ongoing relationship with you, then, then I'm less likely to do it because I think because I feel connected to you and you're part of my team or my tribe, and so I'm less likely to betray a trust to somebody who has entrusted something to me. And which leads me to something companies can do, which is provide more feedback in the hiring process. As I look to all the people who are doing job searches, probably for the last ten years, their applications, their resumes, their assessment results go into a black hole and they're never told, we received your resumé. We're evaluating it right now and you're on our interview list. None of that happens. And so I think in the last ten years, companies bear some responsibility for creating a transaction in the interview process as opposed to this is a relationship. Let's see how it's going to work. And so it creates, I think, a hostile attitude in the employment seeker. No, they're not hostile. But, a negative reaction in the employment seeker who says they're not even talking to me. You know, I can do what I want. These aren't real people. And so I think employers can do something to reduce it. And ultimately, the people who are cheating and lying, that's their own character, that's their own conscience. And so they've got to work on that with, their trusted advisors who will take them out back and, give them a talking to. There's so much focus in the tech world about how technology and all of these problems will get solved by technology, but human beings are more than just sight and sound. I mean, we're touch, taste, smell. All of these other senses are involved in our relationships with people, and they're largely ignored by tech people who think if we just get sight and sound, it'll all be good. Oh, yeah, and some haptic feedback in their fingers. It's it's not enough for a human relationship. Be.