A stark warning from London Business School professor Ekaterina Abramova suggests that artificial intelligence could trigger a historic labor shock, with mass layoffs occurring far faster than new jobs can emerge to replace them. This unprecedented mismatch, she warns, could fuel significant social unrest over the next five to 10 years.
Abramova’s research highlights a critical distinction between AI and previous waves of automation. Unlike the gradual, sector-specific impacts of 18th-century textile mechanization or late-20th-century manufacturing decline, AI can displace thousands of cognitive jobs across multiple industries virtually overnight. A single AI model’s deployment can eliminate entire categories of white-collar work simultaneously, creating a speed and scale of disruption unprecedented in economic history.
The professor expects layoffs to significantly outpace new job creation without aggressive retraining initiatives. Entry-level positions are particularly vulnerable, including junior developers, analysts, and customer support staff. While exact numbers remain unknown, several major corporations have already cited AI as justification for workforce reductions. The challenge is compounded by the fact that new AI-related roles typically require specialized skills and credentials that displaced workers lack.
Peter Orszag, CEO of Lazard and former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama, echoed these concerns on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” He emphasized that labor markets handle gradual changes well but struggle with rapid, large-scale disruptions—exactly what AI threatens to deliver.
Abramova draws historical parallels to illustrate potential consequences. The UK’s Enclosure Acts displaced tens of thousands of farmers, sparking riots and mass migration. Similarly, 1980s coal pit closures devastated mining communities overnight, triggering years of strikes and political upheaval. She warns that without adequate preparation, society could face widening inequality, persistent unemployment, falling consumer demand, rising political anger, and even expanded surveillance as governments attempt to contain discontent.
Business leaders remain divided on AI’s employment impact. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and Ford CEO Jim Farley warn of widespread white-collar displacement, while Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Meta’s Yann LeCun argue AI will transform rather than eliminate work. Huang notably stated that workers won’t lose jobs to robots but to people who use robots effectively.
Abramova advocates for “worker-augmenting AI”—systems where machines handle data-intensive tasks while humans retain judgment, ethics, and client relationships. This approach requires regulatory incentives rewarding responsible oversight rather than rapid headcount reduction.
Key Quotes
A single AI model can displace thousands of cognitive jobs across multiple industries overnight.
Professor Ekaterina Abramova from London Business School explains why AI differs fundamentally from previous automation waves. This statement underscores the unprecedented speed and cross-industry scope of AI-driven job displacement, which can affect multiple sectors simultaneously rather than gradually transforming individual industries.
Labor markets deal well with small problems that happen fast or big problems that happen slow. They do not deal well with big shocks that happen quickly.
Peter Orszag, CEO of Lazard and former Obama administration official, articulates the core vulnerability of modern labor markets on CNBC. His observation highlights why AI poses a unique threat—it combines massive scale with rapid deployment, creating exactly the type of shock that historically overwhelms institutional capacity to respond.
History shows social strain emerges when the pace of economic change overtakes institutions’ capacity to support displaced workers.
Abramova draws on historical research to explain why AI-driven unemployment could trigger social unrest. This quote connects current AI developments to past economic disruptions like the Enclosure Acts and coal pit closures, which sparked riots, strikes, and political upheaval when change outpaced society’s ability to adapt.
You’re going to lose your job not to somebody — not to a robot, you’re going to lose your job to somebody who uses a robot. You’re going to lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang offers a contrasting perspective, suggesting AI will create competitive advantages rather than eliminate jobs entirely. This quote represents the optimistic camp among business leaders who believe AI will augment rather than replace human workers, though it still acknowledges significant workforce disruption.
Our Take
This analysis reveals a critical inflection point in the AI revolution. While technological optimists focus on long-term productivity gains, Abramova’s research exposes a dangerous transition period where social costs could dramatically outweigh economic benefits. The comparison to historical disruptions isn’t alarmist—it’s empirically grounded in how societies respond when change overwhelms adaptation capacity.
What’s particularly concerning is the cognitive nature of jobs at risk. Previous automation primarily affected manual labor, allowing displaced workers to transition into service and knowledge work. AI targets precisely those cognitive roles, leaving fewer obvious alternatives. The divide among business leaders reflects genuine uncertainty about outcomes, but their disagreement shouldn’t obscure the need for immediate action.
The concept of worker-augmenting AI offers a pragmatic path forward, but requires deliberate policy choices and corporate responsibility that market forces alone won’t deliver. Without proactive intervention—massive retraining programs, adjusted social safety nets, and regulatory frameworks incentivizing human-AI collaboration—we risk a decade of social instability that could permanently reshape democratic institutions.
Why This Matters
This analysis matters profoundly because it challenges the optimistic narrative that AI will seamlessly create as many jobs as it destroys. The speed of AI deployment represents a fundamental break from historical patterns of technological disruption, where societies had decades to adapt. The five-to-ten-year timeline Abramova projects means current workers and policymakers face an urgent crisis requiring immediate action.
The implications extend beyond economics into social stability and democratic governance. Historical precedents demonstrate that rapid economic displacement without adequate support systems breeds civil unrest, political extremism, and institutional breakdown. If AI-driven unemployment materializes as predicted, it could reshape political landscapes globally, empowering populist movements and straining social safety nets designed for gradual transitions.
For businesses, this represents both risk and responsibility. Companies deploying AI must balance efficiency gains against societal costs, or face regulatory backlash, consumer boycotts, and talent shortages. The concept of “worker-augmenting AI” offers a middle path that preserves productivity gains while maintaining employment—but only if adopted proactively. The next few years will determine whether AI becomes a tool for shared prosperity or a catalyst for unprecedented inequality and social division.