What’s Next at Work? Much Change, and Likely Some Pain for Employees

Workers, brace yourselves.

The rise of artificial intelligence and other new technology may mean plenty of roles and professions shift in the coming years, displacing some employees and requiring far different skills and training, according to executives in a range of industries.

In sessions at The Wall Street Journal’s Future of Everything Festival this week, some leaders gave blunt assessments of the coming transition and said current employees may not be able to adapt.

“This is the hard part: I’m not sure we can upskill everyone. I don’t think they’re going to make it. It’ll take too long,” said Jim Farley, CEO of Ford Motor, in an onstage interview on Wednesday. “There’s going to be a big shift in know-how in the company.”

At Ford, the automaker will still need traditional roles such as powertrain engineers and supply-chain specialists to help it manufacture vehicles, but it will also require employees with more digital expertise, Mr. Farley said. The company has been recruiting more technical employees, and its office in Silicon Valley is now full of such workers, he said.

“There’s a new skill set we’re going to need, and I don’t think I can teach everyone,” he said. “It’ll take too much time. So there’s going to be disruption.”

For years, workplace specialists predicted that technology would upend work, often warning that blue-collar jobs could be most affected by automation. More recently, though, many leaders see AI as having a far greater potential impact on corporate employees than hourly workers.

At the hotel giant Hilton, CEO Chris Nassetta said he could see AI being used in marketing, revenue management, customer insights and finance functions in the company.

Many executives said they were still unclear about AI’s role inside companies, and some expressed optimism about how the technology could free workers from drudgery.

Slack CEO Lidiane Jones. PHOTO: JUSTIN J WEE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

“AI is going to take away a lot of mundane tasks from people and hopefully free people up to spend more time creatively, spend more time with the people they want to spend time with,” said Marissa Mayer, the former Yahoo CEO. She is now the CEO and co-founder of the startup Sunshine, whose product helps people to better manage their digital contacts.

Others said AI potentially could help with tasks such as summarising messages from colleagues, freeing employees from reading hundreds of emails and other communication.

“When there is so much happening in organisations, AI can also help you focus,” said Lidiane Jones, CEO of the messaging platform Slack. “So out of my 5,000 pings, what are the things that I should really prioritise?”

Labor leaders said they, too, were eyeing AI’s influence on the workplace. Sara Nelson, the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, said she hopes any sort of efficiency benefits achieved through AI would be shared with workers.

“Workers really need to be at the table to make sure that these are going to be technologies that are going to work for us, and give us more tools to do our job,” she said. “So we do want to implement these things in a way where, No. 1, we are sharing the benefits of that productivity, and that’s going into everyone’s pockets who’s a part of that company.”

Beyond technology, executives said they were seeing other changes in the job market. It is now easier to hire cooks, housekeepers and other hotel employees than it was earlier in the pandemic, Hilton’s Mr. Nassetta said, though he added that the hospitality industry is still dealing with some labor shortages. He also called for changes to immigration policies to enable more workers to come to the U.S.

“There just aren’t enough people in our country in terms of service-level jobs to do the things that we need to do,” he said. “If we don’t think about immigration really sensibly, we’re eventually going to stunt the growth of our economy.”

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said his administration was considering flexible hours and other benefits to get more people to take jobs with the city. Mayor Adams also said he was concerned by layoffs among financial companies in New York.

“It’s crucial that we stabilise Wall Street,” he said. “Wall Street is so important to the economic stability of the city.”

Throughout the event, a number of speakers also sprinkled their remarks with guidance for professionals looking to navigate the challenges of careers. Fashion designer Michael Kors said he made the biggest mistakes in his career when he became too focused on others.

“You cannot constantly be looking at everyone else. You can’t look over your shoulder. You have to do what’s right for you,” Mr. Kors said. “Listen to your gut. Move slowly. Stay focused.”

For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.

What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.

Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.

Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.

And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.

More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.

That distinction matters.

For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.

But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.

The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.

Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.

Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.

The result is a system under pressure from all angles.

Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.

Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.

The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.

This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.

Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?

As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.

But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.

It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.

Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.

The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.

Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.

This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.

Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.

That is the paradox.

Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.

It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.

Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.

So where does that leave Australia?

At a crossroads.

The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.

The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.

But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.

The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.

It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.

What’s Next at Work? Much Change, and Likely Some Pain for Employees

At the Journal’s Future of Everything Festival, many predicted work could shift, jobs will vanish and some employees might be displaced; ‘there’s going to be disruption’

As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.