Will AI Replace Jobs? The Myth of “Bullshit” Corporate Roles Disappearing First
As advancements in Artificial Intelligence continue to accelerate, many are asking a compelling question: If AI is poised to automate or replace a broad range of jobs, why do certain roles seem more vulnerable than others? Specifically, there’s a common perception that so-called “corporate bullshit jobs”—such as project managers, consultants, or administrative staff—are more likely to be phased out before frontline roles like housekeepers or factory workers. But is this assumption accurate?
The term “bullshit jobs,” popularized by economist David Graeber, describes roles that many feel are redundant or lack meaningful purpose—primarily administrative, managerial, or repetitive corporate functions. These jobs often involve tasks like creating PowerPoint presentations, endless email correspondence, and attending meetings that contribute little tangible value. Intuitively, such roles might be the first to diminish as AI and automation become more sophisticated, freeing up human resources for more essential labor.
However, the reality is more complex. Historically, roles centered around processing information, managing schedules, and performing routine supervisory tasks have seen significant automation. Yet, sectors that require hands-on physical work—such as cleaning, manufacturing, and other manual labor—have proven far more resistant to complete automation, at least until recent breakthroughs.
This raises an intriguing question: why are some academic disciplines and professional degrees deemed more susceptible to job displacement? Fields like humanities, languages, design, or even computer science—though seemingly diverse—are often viewed as more vulnerable than even economics or finance. The reason lies in the nature of the tasks involved. Creative, interpretive, or person-centric skills are inherently harder for AI to replicate convincingly, thus offering some resilience to automation. Conversely, roles that rely heavily on data analysis, financial modeling, or administrative efficiency are often seen as more straightforward candidates for automation.
The broader implications suggest that the transformation driven by AI may not be as simple as an outright replacement of “low-skill” jobs. Instead, it may lead to a reevaluation of what constitutes meaningful work, the value of administrative roles, and how education aligns with future labor markets. It also highlights the importance of adaptability—both in skills and in understanding the evolving landscape of employment.
In summary, while the narrative of AI eradicating all “pointless” jobs is appealing, the reality is nuanced. Certain roles are more resistant than others, not solely because of their nature, but due to the
Leave a Reply