Muslim World Report

Job Security Anxiety: Navigating AI's Impact on Employment

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 29, 2025 9:32 AM | 10 min read | 2126 words

TL;DR: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the workforce raises significant concerns about job security, particularly for marginalized communities. The potential for widespread displacement threatens economic stability and exacerbates inequalities. Advocacy for worker rights and community mobilization is essential to address these challenges.

Facing the Future: The Rising Anxiety Over AI and Job Security

The rapid advancement and integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into various industries are fundamentally altering employment landscapes, creating a palpable sense of anxiety regarding job security. Recent studies have shown that AI systems now possess capabilities that enable them to execute complex tasks traditionally performed by human workers, raising critical concerns about the displacement of millions from their jobs (Marquis et al., 2024). This evolution is not merely a technological shift; it reflects systemic economic issues that demand urgent attention, particularly in a world increasingly influenced by neoliberal policies that prioritize profit over people.

The reliance on AI threatens not only economic stability but also exacerbates existing inequalities that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Consider these points:

  • Youth Disillusionment: A growing disillusionment with traditional employment opportunities has particularly affected younger generations, who face stagnant wages and escalating living costs (Dempere et al., 2023).
  • Creation of a Permanent Underclass: The burgeoning AI landscape risks creating a permanent underclass of workers rendered obsolete by machines, while a small elite captures the immense wealth generated from these technologies, further widening the chasm of inequality.
  • Psychological Toll: The psychological toll of such displacement can lead to increased mental health crises and social unrest, as individuals struggle to find their place in an increasingly automated world (Idrisi et al., 2024).

What makes this moment particularly urgent is the interplay between AI advancements and a neoliberal economic model that has dominated for decades. As AI becomes a tool for profit maximization, the implications for workforce well-being, mental health, and social cohesion are profound. The erosion of social bonds in favor of AI-mediated interactions could lead to a society where alienation becomes the norm, exacerbating feelings of isolation among those most affected (Waters et al., 1993). If we are not vigilant, we risk cementing a future where the ultrarich monopolize technological advancements, deepening societal divides and potentially sowing the seeds of civil unrest (Dotter & Judkins, 1964).

The Potential for Displacement: What If AI Displaces a Significant Portion of the Workforce?

The prospect of widespread job displacement due to AI introduces the risk of profound societal changes. If millions of jobs vanish, we can expect:

  • Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates: Increased unemployment would lead to heightened poverty, mental health crises, and social instability.
  • Strain on Basic Needs: Many would struggle to meet basic needs such as shelter, food, and healthcare, leading to greater dependence on government assistance programs already facing strain (Kühne et al., 2020).
  • Radical Redefinition of Economic Power Dynamics: A workforce largely supplanted by AI could radically redefine economic power dynamics. The concentration of wealth in a few technology companies would exacerbate existing inequalities, creating a stratified society where the elite control the majority of resources, leading to political instability (Acemoğlu et al., 2022).

Moreover, the psychological ramifications of mass unemployment may diminish community cohesion. Individuals who become isolated and struggle to adapt to an AI-driven economy may find their social networks fading, leading to a rise in mental health issues as they grapple with their identity and purpose in a world that increasingly values efficiency over humanity (Sah et al., 2017). The tragic irony lies in the fact that while the wealthy elite celebrate the potential of AI, it is the working class that bears the heaviest consequences, creating a stark disconnection between their struggles and the lives of those who benefit from these advancements.

The fear of job loss due to AI is not unfounded, especially in light of the aggressive pace of technological progress. Industries ranging from manufacturing and retail to finance and healthcare are already experiencing transformations in workforce dynamics. As AI systems become capable of performing complex decision-making, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify human labor in roles where machines can outperform on metrics such as speed and accuracy. This systemic shift could lead to an escalation of economic disparity, particularly in regions or communities where industries reliant on manual labor are prevalent.

Community Mobilization: What If Communities Mobilize for Worker Rights?

A counter-narrative emerges when we envision communities actively mobilizing to advocate for worker rights in the face of AI-induced job displacement. Through collective action and strategic activism, marginalized groups can challenge dominant narratives surrounding AI and labor markets. Here are several potential actions:

  • Raise Awareness: Community-driven efforts to raise awareness about the implications of AI and advocate for just transitions can empower workers to demand better protections and equitable access to resources generated by these technologies (Zajak et al., 2017).
  • Innovative Solutions: This future may involve exploring innovative solutions such as universal basic income (UBI) or targeted job retraining programs designed to equip individuals with the skills necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing economy (Oka, 2017).
  • Build Coalitions: By fostering collaboration among displaced workers, social activists, and policymakers, communities could develop comprehensive frameworks to mitigate the adverse effects of AI.

Moreover, grassroots movements could reshape labor laws and establish ethical governance frameworks for AI development. By applying pressure on governments and corporations, civil society can advocate for systemic changes that prioritize human welfare over profit maximization. This proactive approach is crucial for instilling a sense of agency among workers who have long been marginalized in discussions about technological advancements, potentially fostering resilience in the face of uncertainty (Devonshire et al., 1949).

The potential for community mobilization emphasizes the power of collective action. If communities organize effectively, they can amplify their voices and challenge the status quo. By forming coalitions that unite disparate groups—including labor unions, social justice organizations, and advocacy groups—these movements stand a better chance of influencing policy and creating robust safety nets that address the needs of those displaced by automation.

This vision of grassroots activism aligns with historical paradigms where collective efforts have resulted in meaningful change. The labor movement of the early 20th century, for instance, demonstrated the impact of organized labor negotiating for better rights and protections. Today, as the impact of AI continues to evolve, such movements are necessary to ensure that the transition to an automated economy is just and equitable.

The Crisis of Inaction: What If Social Systems Fail to Adapt?

Conversely, failure to adapt societal systems to the challenges posed by AI and job displacement could lead to a crisis that exacerbates social inequities and undermines democratic values. The legacy of neoliberal policies, which prioritize deregulation and corporate interests over public welfare, continues to inhibit the development of robust support systems vital for navigating the complexities of an AI-driven economy (Kahraman, 2017). The absence of effective social safety nets could foster disenfranchisement and alienation, leading to a spike in extremist ideologies as individuals search for scapegoats to blame for their frustrations (McPherson et al., 2001).

If systemic barriers that perpetuate economic disparities remain unaddressed, societal divisions will deepen, leaving vulnerable populations at increased risk of discrimination and violence. In such an environment, social unrest may become commonplace as citizens grow disenchanted with governments that appear unresponsive to their needs (Fischer, 2018). As economic inequalities widen, political power may consolidate in the hands of a few, potentially leading to a technocratic governance model that sidelines the voices of the populace (Hastie & Stuetzle, 1989).

To avert this potential crisis, proactive measures must be taken to reorganize social systems in anticipation of the challenges posed by AI. Collaboration among stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and the private sector, is essential for ensuring that technological advancements benefit all members of society rather than exacerbating existing inequalities (Schaller et al., 2015). If we fail to adapt, the consequences will not only undermine social cohesion but also threaten the very foundations of democracy, leaving the populace vulnerable to the whims of the elite.

Strategic Maneuvers: Possible Actions for All Players Involved

Addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by AI requires coordinated strategies from various stakeholders focused on inclusivity and equity. Here’s what can be done:

  1. Government Actions: Governments, as primary actors, must reevaluate existing labor laws and create policies that proactively address changes brought about by AI. This includes investing in educational initiatives and workforce development programs that equip individuals with the necessary skills for the future job market. Implementing universal basic income (UBI) or similar financial protections for those displaced by automation is essential for supporting affected individuals during this transition (Palombit, 1994).

  2. Private Sector Responsibility: The private sector must acknowledge its role in shaping the future of work. Companies profiting from AI technologies have a responsibility to engage ethically with their workforce and invest in retraining programs that facilitate smooth transitions for displaced workers. Establishing public-private partnerships to support workforce reskilling initiatives can lead to a more sustainable economic model that recognizes the value of human labor in an increasingly automated world (Merton, 1968).

  3. Civil Society’s Role: Civil society plays a crucial role in mobilizing communities to advocate for worker rights and equitable policies. By fostering dialogue between workers, activists, and policymakers, these organizations can amplify marginalized voices and hold corporations accountable for their impacts on employment. Engaging local communities in discussions about the future of work will foster inclusive strategies that prioritize individual well-being over corporate profits (Alvarez, 1999).

  4. Academic Contributions: The academic community must continue to critically analyze the implications of AI technologies on labor markets and social systems. Research findings should inform public policy and discourse, ensuring that decisions are grounded in evidence-based analysis rather than speculative narratives (Lovell et al., 2015).

A collaborative approach involving various stakeholders—governments, corporations, civil society, and academia—will be crucial in shaping a future that harmonizes technological advancement with human welfare. As we navigate the unsettling reality of an AI-driven future, we must collectively demand changes that ensure the benefits of automation are shared across society rather than concentrated in the hands of a privileged few.

References

  • Acemoğlu, D., Autor, D., Hazell, J., & Restrepo, P. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies. Journal of Labor Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/718327
  • Alvarez, S. E. (1999). Advocating feminism: The Latin American Feminist NGO ‘Boom’. International Feminist Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1080/146167499359880
  • Carter, S. M., Rogers, W., Win, K. T., Frazer, H., Richards, B., & Houssami, N. (2019). The ethical, legal and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care. The Breast. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.10.001
  • Devonshire, A. F. (1949). Theory of barium titanate. The London Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786444908561372
  • Dempere, J., Modugu, K. P., Hesham, A., & Ramasamy, L. K. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on higher education. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1206936
  • Fischer, A. P. (2018). A New Era for Labor Activism? Strategic Mobilization of Human Rights Against Blacklisting. Law & Social Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12299
  • Hastie, T., & Stuetzle, W. (1989). Principal Curves. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1989.10478797
  • Idrisi, M. J., Geteye, D., & Shanmugasundaram, P. (2024). Modeling the Complex Interplay: Dynamics of Job Displacement and Evolution of Artificial Intelligence in a Socio-Economic Landscape. The International Journal of Networked and Distributed Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44227-024-00025-0
  • Kahraman, F. (2017). Brands as labour rights advocates? Potential and limits of brand advocacy in global supply chains. Business Ethics: A European Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12172
  • Lovell, G. I., McCann, M. W., & Taylor, K. (2015). Covering Legal Mobilization: A Bottom‐Up Analysis of Wards Cove v. Atonio. Law & Social Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12143
  • Marquis, Y. A., Oladoyinbo, T. O., Olabanji, S. O., Oladeji Olaniyi, O., & Ajayi, S. A. (2024). Proliferation of AI Tools: A Multifaceted Evaluation of User Perceptions and Emerging Trend. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2024/v18i1596
  • Meyer, D. S., & Whittier, N. (1994). Social Movements in Social Movements. In Social Movements: Identity, Culture, and the State. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. PubMed.
  • Oka, C. (2017). A New Era for Labor Activism? Strategic Mobilization of Human Rights Against Blacklisting. Law & Social Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12299
  • Palombit, R. A. (1994). Dynamic Pair Bonds in Hylobatids: Implications Regarding Monogamous Social Systems. Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853994x00055
  • Reiners, D. S. (2007). Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change after Catastrophic Events. Perspectives on Politics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592707071010
  • Sah, P., Mann, J., & Bansal, S. (2017). Disease implications of animal social network structure: A synthesis across social systems. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12786
  • Schaller, G. et al. (2015). Sustaining Community: Collaboration Between the Public Sector, Nonprofits, and Businesses. American Journal of Community Psychology. 55(3-4), 1-12.
  • Waters, L. E., Tyndall, J., & Sim, M. S. (1993). The special problem of social integration in a high-technology economy. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01005859
  • Zajak, S., Egels-Zandén, N., & Piper, N. (2017). Networks of Labour Activism: Collective Action across Asia and Beyond. Development and Change. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12336
← Prev Next →