
TARRIC BROOKER: How AI will affect YOUR job - whether you're a tradie or an office worker - and the ripple effects it will have on the property market and the careers of a generation
At one end of the spectrum, there is the hopeful view that AI will help to dramatically improve productivity and act to kickstart broad-based growth in living standards.
At the other, there is concern that AI could be the catalyst for one of the most challenging shifts for societies and economies in modern history.
One of the figures taking the latter view is Ford CEO Jim Farley. 'AI is going to replace literally half of all white collar workers,' Mr Farley said in a recent conference address.
'I believe that AI and new technology have an asymmetric impact on our economy. That means a lot of things are helped a lot, and a lot of things are hurt,' Farley said.
However, the Albanese government has spoken in positive terms about the potential impact of AI on the economy.
In an address to the 'Australia's Economic Outlook 2025' conference in Sydney last week, the Prime Minister said artificial intelligence will deliver 'secure and fulfilling jobs' - not threaten them.
That follows comments by Treasurer Jim Chalmers backing the minimal regulation of AI, arguing that the Albanese government's focus was on how technological progress can boost productivity, rather than implementing limits on its use.
Aussie industries exposed to AI
When it comes to the impact of AI by industry, it can vary considerably. According to an analysis by investment bank Goldman Sachs, over the next decade, 46 per cent of jobs in office and administrative support are exposed to AI.
At the other end of the spectrum, in one of Australia's largest industries, the construction and resource extraction sector, just six per cent of jobs are exposed to AI.
The rest of industries fall somewhere in the middle, with hands-on, blue collar roles significantly less likely to be impacted by the rise of AI.
Overall, Goldman Sachs estimates that 300 million jobs could be diminished or lost over the next decade.
Comparison with the Industrial Revolution
As concern continues to build over the impact of AI on jobs and our society more broadly, parallels have been drawn with the impact of the Industrial Revolution - considered the period from the 19th century onwards where technologies such as mass production brought massive growth.
Unfortunately, when one assesses the history of the Industrial Revolution and contrasts it with the promise of AI, it is clear they are two very different developments.
The major difference between the Industrial Revolution and the promise of the AI is that one is hardware, the other is software.
During that era, replacing a human with a machine was an expensive and time-consuming process.
For example, to replace the farm workers separating grain from the husks and stems of crops with a steam powered threshing machine in the mid-19th century, it cost the equivalent of between five and ten times an average farmer's annual wage.
Given the availability of loans and business finance more broadly in that era, the capital-intensive nature of the shift towards mechanised operations was gradual.
This is illustrated in the relatively gradual shift in the proportion of people employed in agriculture over time.
In 1820, 73 per cent of the American workforce was employed in agriculture. By 1855, the figure had fallen to 53 per cent of the workforce and to 40 per cent by the turn of the 20th century.
Meanwhile, the cost of implementing an AI like ChatGPT in a business setting is as little as $46 per user per month.
For a small fraction of an office's monthly budget for takeaway coffees, tools could be implemented that could have a transformative effect on the way we work and the way our labour is demanded.
This could scarcely be more different to the world of the Industrial Revolution, where implementing new technologies was an extremely expensive and time consuming endeavour.
The impact of AI on the nation's property market will likely be directly proportional to the impact on the labour market.
If a sizeable proportion of people are left effectively unemployable by the rapid evolution of technology in the workplace, then it's challenging to see how property prices don't take a hit without some form of policymaker intervention.
But it's not the early 1990s anymore. Back then, banks were far less forgiving of mortgage holders in difficulty and thousands of people lost their homes.
During the pandemic the banks, government and RBA adopted a strategy called 'Extend and Pretend'.
It allowed mortgage holders to defer their payments. The normal rules were effectively suspended, rather than the usual arrears process being pursued.
It's therefore not hard to imagine an equally unprecedented strategy being pursued to prevent people from losing their homes and the housing market from crashing, if the downside scenarios for the labour market were to be realised.
Joke proposals about policies such as YouTube personality Florian Heisse's 'Mortgage Keeper' - which entails the federal government paying your mortgage, similar to JobKeeper - may switch from the realm of the somewhat amusing to that of reality.
To what degree an intervention could be successful depends very much on the scale of the impact of AI on the ranks of the nation's workers and how businesses collectively adapt to that.
AI revolution's effect on Gen Z
There are some signs that the impact on the labour market has already begun to be felt in the United States, as the unemployment rate for recent college graduates rises.
A recent report from research firm Oxford Economics concluded: 'There are signs that entry-level positions are being displaced by artificial intelligence at higher rates.'
Molly Kinder, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, which studies the impact of AI, said: 'Employers are saying, 'These tools are so good that I no longer need marketing analysts, finance analysts and research assistants'.'
The early reports from within US industry suggest that the immediate impact will be felt by Gen Z, as employers seek to automate largely entry level tasks that don't require a great deal of in-depth training.
If the downside scenario were to be realised, this leaves the impacted members of Gen Z at something of an impasse.
If they can't get their foot in the door because businesses are focused on entry level jobs being performed by AI, how can they get the work experience needed in order to get a more senior level role?
On the potential upside for Gen Z, of all the generations, they are the most accustomed to the usage of AI and may have an advantage in adapting to the new employment roles of managing, refining and directing AI software.
The impact on other generations and even older members of Gen Z who are more established in their careers is more uncertain, with a great deal more variation depending on what sort of role they are employed in.
The positive scenario for workers
The upside scenario of the proliferation of AI in the workplace hinges on the idea that it will either have a minimal net impact on overall employment, or will end up creating more jobs than it eliminates in net terms.
The theory is that the impact on the labour market will be a net positive, due to the combination of new jobs focused on the burgeoning AI sector and the productivity increases that are expected to come with the widespread adoption of AI.
At an individual business level, it is hoped that this will allow workers to focus on higher value and more vital tasks, while routine work is largely automated and allowed to run in the background.
Regardless, while the outlook for the impact of AI remains highly uncertain, the world may soon be finding itself at a major crossroads, the type of shift that only comes up maybe once a generation.
If AI fulfils even half its promised capabilities, it will be a turning point in history, for better or for worse.
If AI fulfils even half its promised capabilities, it will be a turning point in history, writes commentator Tarric Brooker (above)
On the other hand, it's possible that AI's impact may be more limited than anticipated in the remaining years of this decade. Business owners will soon determine whether or not the level of capability and accuracy provided by these new tools is right for their businesses.
Despite the parallels that have been drawn with all manner of other technological leaps in the modern history of humanity, this could mark a rapid evolution in our history.
Steam engines, flight, the personal computer and the internet all found a place in our societies and our lives gradually over time, with each one seeing a faster adoption than the last.
But this time is different. This time, the overwhelming majority of us already hold the necessary hardware to use an AI agent in the palm of our hands.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Zuckerberg says Meta will invest hundreds of billions in superintelligence
July 14 (Reuters) - Mark Zuckerberg said on Monday that Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on computing power to build superintelligence, intensifying his pursuit of a technology he has chased with a talent war for top AI engineers. The announcement comes as tech giants such as Meta aggressively chase high-profile acquisitions and offer multi-million-dollar pay packages to attract top talent in the race to lead the next wave of artificial intelligence. "We have the capital from our business to do this," Zuckerberg said in a post on Threads. The Facebook and Instagram parent has recently unveiled its new division, Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL), to unify the company's AI efforts, following setbacks with its Llama 4 model and key staff departures. The MSL will be led by former Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang and ex-GitHub chief Nat Friedman, after Meta invested $14.3 billion in Scale and ramped up efforts to recruit top AI talent.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Australia fires first HIMARS long-range rocket in war game with US
ROCKHAMPTON, Australia, July 14 (Reuters) - Australia's army fired a truck-mounted long range rocket system that has become a priority for U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific for the first time on Monday, alongside U.S. and Singapore forces firing the same system in joint war games. Armoured trucks with HIMARS - High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems that can reach 400 km (250 miles) - are in high demand in the Ukraine conflict and are also being acquired by U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, which is reshaping its forces to respond to China's military build-up. On the first day of Australia's largest war games, "Talisman Sabre", the U.S., Australia, Japan, France, South Korea and Singapore held a live-fire exercise in northern Queensland involving U.S. F-35B fighter jets and land-based long-range strike rockets and missiles. Up to 40,000 troops from 19 nations are taking part in Talisman Sabre, across thousands of kilometres from Australia's Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island to the Coral Sea on Australia's east coast. Australian Army Brigadier Nick Wilson, director general of the combined live-fire exercise, said it was the first time Australia, Singapore and the United States had fired HIMARS together, and the first firing by Australia on home soil. "HIMARS will be utilised in conjunction with a number of other weapon platforms ... to ensure we have a strategy of denial for security, peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific," he told reporters on Monday. The joint exercise at Shoalwater Bay in north Queensland was watched by Australian Governor General Sam Mostyn and Chief of Defence Admiral David Johnston. Australia has previously said army regiments with HIMARS can be transported to neighbouring island states with defence agreements to protect its northern approaches in a conflict. Lockheed Martin delivered the first two of 42 HIMARS launcher vehicles ordered by Australia in April. Australia has said it will spend A$74 billion ($49 billion) on missiles over the next decade, including a new domestic manufacturing capability. U.S. Army Lieutenant General Joel Vowell, deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said on Sunday the U.S. needed to work with partners in the Indo-Pacific, and that Talisman Sabre was "a deterrent mechanism because our ultimate goal is no war".


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Neoliberalism lite' is no solution to Australia's cost-of-living and productivity crises. We must curb wealth concentration
With a national productivity roundtable on the horizon, Anthony Albanese is seeking answers to flagging economic performance, cost-of-living pressures and growing economic anxiety. But productivity debates rarely confront the elephant in the room: four decades of rising wealth concentration has coincided with Australia's worst productivity performance in living memory. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, signalled his intent to 'grasp the nettle' on tax reform – a bold invitation to reckon with a structural driver of slowing productivity. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email The scale of the task is significant. The top 10% of households now control 44% of all wealth in Australia. The collective wealth of the richest 200 Australians has nearly tripled over two decades, mostly from property and resources – economic activities that extract value from existing assets rather than new productive capacities; what economists call 'rent-seeking'. The relationship between wealth concentration and productivity warrants examination. As economist Joseph Stiglitz argues, not all wealth represents productive capital. Rent-seeking concentrates wealth away from productivity-enhancing investments – in business innovation, public infrastructure, and worker wages. This leaves ordinary people paying ever-higher proportions of their income for necessities. French economist Thomas Piketty expanded Keynes' insight; without deliberate countermeasures, market economies naturally concentrate wealth as returns on assets outpace wages growth, making inequality an inherent feature of capitalism. This natural tendency can be accelerated by crises. The 2008 financial crisis and Covid-19 pandemic both triggered massive upward wealth transfers. While central banks' emergency measures prevented economic collapse, they disproportionately benefited those at the top. This marks a dramatic reversal from post-second world war prosperity, when countries like Australia, Canada, the UK and the US experienced broader wealth distribution. Institutional safeguards of the era, such as strong unions and progressive public policy, have steadily eroded, contributing to growing wealth concentration that now approaches pre-war levels. When middle and working-class families lose purchasing power, consumer demand falters. Since consumer spending drives 60-70% of economic activity in advanced economies, wealth concentration and income inequality trigger a demand spiral that weakens both business profitability and government revenues. Meanwhile, wealth inequality frays the social fabric. Financial hardship brings higher rates of anxiety, depression, suicide, addiction, family breakdown and domestic violence – placing further strain on public resources and healthcare systems. Despite growing awareness of wealth concentration's role in undermining economic performance and social health, political responses remain muted. Labor's re-election offers a revealing case. The party won not by proposing bold redistributive reform but by channelling voter anxiety around global uncertainty and cost-of-living pressure while keeping structural inequality off the table, as evidenced by Australian Labor's retreat on negative gearing reform. Despite commendable efforts to lift wages, wages of Australians have only returned to 2011 levels. This strategic ambiguity epitomises a modern centre-left paradox: parties can win elections on cost-of-living concerns only because they don't threaten the wealth concentration causing them. As seen in other advanced economies, failure to address underlying inequality eventually opens the door to movements that scapegoat minorities, immigrants and institutions while further slashing taxes for the rich – deepening the very discontent they exploit and threatening democracy. Chalmers has broken ranks with the usual political caution, stating that 'no sensible progress can be made on productivity, resilience or budget sustainability without proper consideration of more tax reform'. He has vowed to 'dial-up' Labor's ambition to change the tax system, signalling he is open to controversial ideas. However, newly surfaced Treasury advice suggests that while Chalmers signals political ambition, the institutional response remains conservative – tinkering at the edges while avoiding any serious confrontation with wealth concentration. Such a reset will require acknowledging a core contradiction at the heart of current policy: those who champion deregulation and resist redistribution undermine the very consumer base their prosperity depends on. The wealthy few cannot consume enough to replace the spending power of millions and the resulting demand weakness eventually undermines the economy. Unlike past technological revolutions, generative AI can perform non-routine cognitive tasks – affecting professionals across virtually every knowledge-based field . AI entrepreneur Ed Newton-Rex warned that tech elites are openly discussing their ambition to own the entire means of production through 'full automation of the economy'. As the adoption of generative AI accelerates, it threatens to decouple productivity from labour input – increasing unemployment and underemployment, pushing down wages and reducing disposable income. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Unless proactively managed, the transition to an AI-driven economy will see instability due to large-scale job displacement and unprecedented wealth capture. The current policy mix – 'neoliberalism lite' – will not solve these challenges. Australia needs a bold vision beyond tax reform that redirects economic returns toward broad-based prosperity. Norway's Government Pension Fund Global and Alaska's Permanent Fund show how sovereign wealth funds deliver public returns that can be reinvested for collective benefit. The entrepreneurial state model also ensures public investment yields public returns. Governments already underwrite innovation but rarely retain equity. Social production wages could pay those displaced by automation for charity work, caregiving, environmental restoration, informal mentoring and civic participation. Job guarantee schemes would ensure full employment through public service roles, underwritten by the returns of sovereign wealth funds. Whatever the approach, rather than framing public investment as wasteful spending, we should recognise it as essential. Central banks may be heralding their victory over inflation but ordinary Australians have little to celebrate. Slowing inflation merely reduces the pace of price increases – it doesn't reverse the cost-of-living surge. When wealth becomes too concentrated, it erodes not only economic dynamism but also the institutional foundations of productivity. Chalmers is right to say that reform is a 'test of the country'. The upcoming roundtable should acknowledge wealth concentration as a systemic risk and confront it directly. Now is the time for cross-sector leadership. Curbing wealth concentration may no longer be just a progressive preference. It may be capitalism's only lifeline. Associate Prof Jo-An Occhipinti is an NHMRC principal research fellow and co-director of the Mental Wealth Initiative at the University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Centre Dr Ante Prodan is a computer scientist and complex systems researcher with the school of computer, data and mathematical sciences at Western Sydney University Prof John Buchanan is a labour market researcher and co-director of the Mental Wealth Initiative employed in business information systems at the University of Sydney Business School