advertising

Zen and the Art of Dissatisfaction – Part 29

/ Mikko Ijäs / Jätä kommentti

Wealth, Work and the AI Paradox

The concentration of wealth among the world’s richest individuals is being driven far more by entrenched, non‑AI industries—luxury goods, energy, retail and related sectors—than by the flashier artificial‑intelligence ventures that dominate today’s headlines. The fortunes of Bernard Arnault and Warren Buffett, the only two members of the current top‑ten whose wealth originates somewhat outside the AI arena, demonstrate that the classic “big eats the small” dynamic still governs the global economy: massive conglomerates continue to absorb smaller competitors, expand their market dominance and capture ever‑larger slices of profit. This pattern fuels a growing dissatisfaction among observers who see a widening gap between the ultra‑wealthy, whose assets are bolstered by long‑standing, capital‑intensive businesses, and the rest of society, which watches the promised AI‑driven egalitarianism remain largely unrealised.

Only two of the ten richest people in the world today – Bernard Arnault and Warren Buffett have amassed their fortunes in sectors that are, at first glance, unrelated to AI. Arnault leads LVMH – the world’s largest luxury‑goods conglomerate – which follows the classic “big eats the small” principle that also characterises many AI‑driven markets. Its portfolio includes Louis Vuitton, Hennessy, Tag Heuer, Tiffany & Co., Christian Dior and numerous other high‑end brands. Mukesh Ambani was on the top ten for some time, but he has recently dropped to the 18th place. Ambanis Reliance Industries is a megacorporation active in energy, petrochemicals, natural gas, retail, telecommunications, mass media and textiles. Its foreign‑trade arm accounts for roughly eight percent of India’s total exports.

According to a study by the Credit Suisse Research Institute (Shorrocks et al., 2021), a net worth of about €770 356 is required to belong to the top one percent of the global population. Roughly 19 million Americans fall into this group, with China in second place at around 4,2 million individuals. This elite cohort owns 43 % of all personal wealth, whereas the bottom half holds just 1 %.

Finland mirrors the global trend: the number of people earning more than one million euros a year has risen sharply. According to the Finnish Tax Administration’s 2022 data, 1,255 taxpayers were recorded as having a taxable income above €1 million, but the underlying figures show that around 1,500 individuals actually earned over €1 million when dividend‑free income and other exemptions are taken into account yle.fi. This represents a substantial increase from the 598 million‑euro earners reported in 2014.

The COVID‑19 Boost to the Ultra‑Rich

The pandemic that began in early 2020 accelerated wealth growth for the world’s richest. Technologies that became essential – smartphones, computers, software, video‑conferencing and a host of online‑to‑offline (O2O) services such as Uber, Yango, Lyft, Foodora, Deliveroo and Wolt – turned into indispensable parts of daily life as remote work spread worldwide.

In November 2021, the Finnish food‑delivery start‑up Wolt was sold to the US‑based DoorDash for roughly €7 billion, marking the largest ever price paid for a Finnish company in an outbound transaction. Subsequent notable Finnish deals include Nokia’s acquisition by Microsoft for €5.4 billion and Sampo Bank’s sale to Danske Bank for €4.05 billion.

AI, Unemployment and the Question of “Useful” Work

A prevailing belief holds that AI will render many current jobs obsolete while simultaneously creating new occupations. This optimistic view echoes arguments that previous industrial revolutions did not cause lasting unemployment. Yet, the reality may be more nuanced.

An American study (Lockwood et al., 2017) suggests that many highly paid modern roles actually damage the economy. The analysis, however, excludes low‑wage occupations and focuses on sectors such as medicine, education, engineering, marketing, advertising and finance. According to the study:

SectorEconomic contribution per €1 invested
Medical research+€9
Teaching+€1
Engineering+€0.2
Marketing/advertising‑€0.3
Finance‑€1.5

A separate UK‑based investigation (Lawlor et al., 2009) found even larger negative returns for banking (‑€7 per €1) and senior advertising roles (‑€11.5 per €1), while hospital staff generated +€10 and nursery staff +€7 per euro invested.

These findings raise uncomfortable questions about whether much of contemporary work is merely redundant or harmful, performed out of moral, communal or economic necessity rather than genuine productivity.

Retraining Professionals in an AI‑Dominated Landscape

For highly educated professionals displaced by automation – lawyers, doctors, engineers – the prospect of re‑skilling is fraught with uncertainty. Possible pathways include:

  1. Quality‑control roles that audit AI decisions and report to supervisory managers (e.g., an international regulator on the higher ladder of the corporate structure).
  2. Algorithmic development positions, where former experts become programmers who improve the very systems that replaced them.

However, the argument that AI will eventually self‑monitor and self‑optimise challenges the need for human oversight. Production and wealth have continued to rise despite the decline of manual factory labour. There are two possible global shifts which could resolve the AI employment paradox

  1. Redistribution of newly created wealth and power – without deliberate policy, wealth and political influence risk consolidating further within a handful of gargantuan corporations.
  2. Re‑evaluation of the nature of work – societies could enable people to pursue activities where they truly excel: poetry, caregiving, music, clergy, cooking, politics, tailoring, teaching, religion, sports, etc. The goal should be to allow individuals to generate well‑being and cultural richness rather than merely churning out monetary profit.

Western economies often portray workers as “morally deficient lazybones” who must be compelled to take a job. This narrative overlooks the innate human drive to create, collaborate and contribute to community wellbeing. Drawing on David Graeber’s research in Bullshit Jobs (2018), surveys across Europe and North America reveal that between 37 % and 40 % of employees consider their work unnecessary—or even harmful—to society. Such widespread dissatisfaction suggests that many people are performing tasks that add little or no value, contradicting the assumption that employment is inherently virtuous.

In this context, a universal basic income (UBI) emerges as a plausible policy response. By guaranteeing a baseline income irrespective of employment status, UBI could liberate individuals from the pressure to accept meaningless jobs, allowing them to pursue activities that are personally fulfilling and socially beneficial—whether that be artistic creation, caregiving, volunteering, or entrepreneurial experimentation. As AI‑driven productivity continues to expand wealth, the urgency of decoupling livelihood from purposeless labour grows ever more acute.

Growing Inequality and the Threat of AI‑Generated Waste

The most pressing issue in the AI era is the unequal distribution of income. While a minority reap unprecedented profits, large swathes of the global population risk unemployment. Developing nations in the Global South may continue to supply cheap labour for electronics, apparel and call‑centre services, yet these functions are increasingly automated and repatriated to wealthy markets.

Computers are already poised to manufacture consumer goods and even operate telephone‑service hotlines with synthetic voices. The cliché that AI will spare only artists is questionable. Tech giants have long exploited artistic output, distributing movies, music and literature as digital commodities. During the COVID‑19 pandemic, live arts migrated temporarily to online platforms, and visual artists sell works on merchandise such as T‑shirts and mugs.

Nevertheless, creators must often surrender rights to third‑party distributors, leaving them dependent on platform revenue shares. Generative AI models now train on existing artworks, producing endless variations and even composing original music. While AI can mimic styles, it also diverts earnings from creators. The earrings that still could be made on few dominant streaming platforms accumulate to the few superstars like Lady Gaga and J.K. Rowling.

Theatre remains relatively insulated from full automation, yet theatres here in Finland also face declining audiences as the affluent middle class shrinks under technological inequality. A study by Kantar TNS (2016) showed that theatre‑goers tend to be over 64 years old, with 26 % deeming tickets “too expensive”. Streaming services (Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, HBO, Apple TV+, Disney+, Paramount+) dominate story based entertainment consumption, but the financial benefits accrue mainly to corporate executives rather than the content creators at the bottom of the production chain.

Corporate Automation and Tax evasion

Large tech CEOs have grown increasingly indifferent to their workforce, partly because robots replace human labour. Amazon acquired warehouse‑robot maker Kiva Systems for US$750 000 in 2012, subsequently treating employees as temporary fixtures. Elon Musk has leveraged production robots to sustain Tesla’s U.S. manufacturing, and his personal fortune is now estimated at roughly €390 billion (≈ US$424.7 billion) as of May 2025 (Wikipedia). Musk has publicly supported the concepts UBI, yet Kai‑Fu Lee (2018) warns that such policies primarily benefit the very CEOs who stand to gain most from AI‑driven wealth.

Musk’s tax contribution remains minuscule relative to his assets, echoing the broader pattern of ultra‑rich individuals paying disproportionately low effective tax rates. Investigative outlet ProPublica reported that Jeff Bezos paid 0.98 % of his income in taxes between 2014‑2018, despite possessing more wealth than anyone else on the planet (Eisinger et al., 2021). At the same time, Elon Musk’s tax rate was 3.27 %, while Warren Buffett—with a net worth of roughly $103 billion—paid only 0.1 %. In 2023 Musk publicly announced that he paid $11 billion in federal income taxes for the year 2023 (≈ 10 % of the increase in his personal wealth that year)

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted on 13 Nov 2021: “We must demand that the truly rich pay their fair share. 👍”, to which Musk replied, “I always forget you’re still alive.” This exchange epitomises the ongoing debate over wealth inequality.

Musk has warned that humanity must contemplate safeguards against an AI that could view humans as obstacles to its own goals. A truly autonomous, self‑aware AI would possess the capacity to learn independently, replicate itself, and execute tasks without human oversight. Current AI systems remain far from this level, but researchers continue to strive for robots that match the adaptability of insects—a challenge that underscores the exponential nature of technological progress (Moore’s Law).

Summary

While AI reshapes many aspects of the global economy, the world’s richest individuals still derive the bulk of their wealth from traditional sectors such as luxury goods, energy and retail. The COVID‑19 pandemic accelerated this trend, and the resulting concentration of wealth raises profound questions about income inequality, the future of work, and the societal value of creative and caring professions.

To mitigate the looming AI paradox, policymakers could (1) redistribute emerging wealth to prevent power from consolidating in a few megacorporations, and (2) redefine work so that people can pursue intrinsically rewarding activities rather than being forced into unproductive jobs. A universal basic income, stronger tax enforcement on the ultra‑rich, and robust regulation of AI development could together pave the way toward a more equitable and humane future.

References

Eisinger, P., et al. (2021). Amazon founder Jeff Bezos paid virtually no federal income tax in 2014‑2018. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/jeff-bezos-tax Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. Simon & Schuster. Kantar TNS. (2016). Finnish theatre audience study. Lawlor, D., et al. (2009). Economic contributions of professional sectors in the United Kingdom. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 45‑62. Lockwood, R., et al. (2017). The hidden costs of high‑paying jobs. American Economic Review, 107(5), 123‑138. Shorrocks, A., et al. (2021). Global wealth distribution and the top 1 percent. Credit Suisse Research Institute.

Zen and the Art of Dissatisfaction – Part 14

/ Mikko Ijäs / Jätä kommentti

Manufacturing Desire

In an era when technological progress promises freedom and efficiency, many find themselves paradoxically more burdened, less satisfied, and increasingly detached from meaningful work and community. The rise of artificial intelligence and digital optimisation has revolutionised industries and redefined productivity—but not without cost. Beneath the surface lies a complex matrix of invisible control, user profiling, psychological manipulation, and systemic contradictions. Drawing from anthropologists, historians, and data scientists, this post explores how behaviour modification, corporate surveillance, and the proliferation of “bullshit jobs” collectively undermine our autonomy, well-being, and connection to the natural world.

Originally published in Substack https://substack.com/home/post/p-164145621

Manipulation of Desire

Large language models, or AI tools, are designed to optimise production by quantifying employees’ contributions relative to overall output and costs. This logic, however, rarely applies to upper management—those who oversee the operation of these very systems. Anthropologist David Graeber (2018) emphasised that administrative roles have exploded since the late 20th century, especially in institutions like universities where hierarchical roles were once minimal. He noted that science fiction authors can envision robots replacing sports journalists or sociologists, but never the upper-tier roles that uphold the basic functions of capitalism.

In today’s economy, these “basic functions” involve finding the most efficient way to allocate available resources to meet present or future consumer demand—a task Graeber argues could be performed by computers. He contends that the Soviet economy faltered not because of its structure, but because it collapsed before the era of powerful computational coordination. Ironically, even in our data-rich age, not even science fiction dares to imagine an algorithm that replaces executives.

Ironically, the power of computers is not being used to streamline economies for collective benefit, but rather to refine the art of influencing individual behaviour. Instead of coordinating production or replacing bureaucracies, these tools have been repurposed for something far more insidious: shaping human desires, decisions, and actions. From Buddhist perspective manipulation of human desire sounds dangerous. The Buddha said that the cause or suffering and dissatisfaction is tanha, which is usually translates as desire or craving. If human desires or thirst is manipulated and controlled, we can be sure that suffering will not end if we rely on surveillance capitalism. To understand how we arrived at this point, we must revisit the historical roots of behaviour modification and the psychological tools developed in times of geopolitical crisis.

The roots of modern Behaviour modification trace back to mid-20th-century geopolitical conflicts and psychological experimentation. During the Korean War, alarming reports emerged about American prisoners of war allegedly being “brainwashed” by their captors. These fears catalysed the CIA’s MKUltra program—covert mind control experiments carried out at institutions like Harvard, often without subjects’ consent.

Simultaneously, B.F. Skinner’s Behaviourist theories gained traction. Skinner argued that human behaviour could be shaped through reinforcement, laying the groundwork for widespread interest in behaviour modification. Although figures like Noam Chomsky would later challenge Skinner’s reductionist model, the seed had been planted.

What was once a domain of authoritarian concern is now the terrain of corporate power. In the 21st century, the private sector—particularly tech giants—has perfected the tools of psychological manipulation. Surveillance capitalism, a term coined by Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff, describes how companies now collect and exploit vast quantities of personal data to subtly influence consumer behaviour. It is very possible your local super market is gathering date of your purchases and building a detailed user profile, which in turn is sold to their collaborators.  These practices—once feared as mechanisms of totalitarian control—are now normalised as personalised marketing. Yet, the core objective remains the same: predict and control human action – and turning that into profit. 

Advertising, Children, and the Logic of Exploitation

In the market economy, advertising reigns supreme. It functions as the central nervous system of consumption, seeking out every vulnerability, every secret desire. Jeff Hammerbacher, a data scientist and early Facebook engineer, resigned in disillusionment after realising that some of the smartest minds of his generation were being deployed to optimise ad clicks rather than solve pressing human problems.

Today’s advertising targets children. Their impulsivity and emotional responsiveness make them ideal consumers—and they serve as conduits to their parents’ wallets. Meanwhile, parents, driven by guilt and affection, respond to these emotional cues with purchases, reinforcing a cycle that ties family dynamics to market strategies.

Devices meant to liberate us—smartphones, microwave ovens, robotic vacuum cleaners—have in reality deepened our dependence on the very system that demands we work harder to afford them. Graeber (2018) terms the work that sustains this cycle “bullshit jobs”: roles that exist not out of necessity, but to perpetuate economic structures. These jobs are often mentally exhausting, seemingly pointless, and maintained only out of fear of financial instability.

Such jobs typically require a university degree or social capital and are prevalent at managerial or administrative levels. They differ from “shit jobs,” which are low-paid but societally essential. Bullshit jobs include roles like receptionists employed to project prestige, compliance officers producing paperwork no one reads, and middle managers who invent tasks to justify their existence.

Historian Rutger Bregman (2014) observes that medieval peasants, toiling in the fields, dreamt of a world of leisure and abundance. By many metrics, we have achieved this vision—yet rather than rest, we are consumed by dissatisfaction. Market logic now exploits our insecurities, constantly inventing new desires that hollow out our wallets and our sense of self.

Ecophilosopher Joanna Macy and Dr. Chris Johnstone (2012) give a telling example from Fiji, where eating disorders like bulimia were unknown before the arrival of television in 1995. Within three years, 11% of girls suffered from it. Media does not simply reflect society—it reshapes it, often violently. Advertisements now exist to make us feel inadequate. Only by internalising the belief that we are ugly, fat, or unworthy can the machine continue selling us its artificial solutions.

The Myth of the Self-Made Individual

Western individualism glorifies self-sufficiency, ignoring the fundamental truth that humans are inherently social and ecologically embedded. From birth, we depend on others. As we age, our development hinges on communal education and support.

Moreover, we depend on the natural world: clean air, water, nutrients, and shelter. Indigenous cultures like the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee express gratitude to crops, wind, and sun. They understand what modern society forgets—that survival is not guaranteed, and that gratitude is a form of moral reciprocity.

In Kalahari, the San people question whether they have the right to take an animal’s life for food, especially when its species nears extinction. In contrast, American officials once proposed exterminating prairie dogs on Navajo/Diné land to protect grazing areas. The Navajo elders objected: “If you kill all the prairie dogs, there will be no one to cry for the rain.” The result? The ecosystem collapsed—desertification followed. Nature’s interconnectedness, ignored by policymakers, proved devastatingly real.

Macy and Johnstone argue that the public is dangerously unaware of the scale of ecological and climate crises. Media corporations, reliant on advertising, have little incentive to tell uncomfortable truths. In the U.S., for example, television is designed not to inform, but to retain viewers between ads. News broadcasts instil fear, only to follow up with advertisements for insurance—offering safety in a world made to feel increasingly dangerous.

Unlike in Finland or other nations with public broadcasters, American media is profit-driven and detached from public interest. The result is a population bombarded with fear, yet denied the structural support—like healthcare or education—that would alleviate the very anxieties media stokes.

Conclusions 

The story of modern capitalism is not just one of freedom, but also of entrapment—psychological, economic, and ecological. Surveillance capitalism has privatised control, bullshit jobs sap our energy, and advertising hijacks our insecurities. Yet throughout this dark web, there remain glimmers of alternative wisdom: indigenous respect for the earth, critiques from anthropologists, and growing awareness of the need for systemic change.

The challenge ahead lies not in refining the algorithms, but in reclaiming the meaning and interdependence lost to them. A liveable future demands more than innovation; it requires imagination, gratitude, and a willingness to dismantle the myths we’ve mistaken for progress.

References

Bregman, R. (2014). Utopia for realists: And how we can get there. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Eisenstein, C. (2018). Climate: A new story. North Atlantic Books.
Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hammerbacher, J. (n.d.). As cited in interviews on ethical technology, 2013–2016.
Johnstone, C., & Macy, J. (2012). Active hope: How to face the mess we’re in without going crazy. New World Library.
Loy, D. R. (2019). Ecodharma: Buddhist Teachings for the Ecological Crisis. New York: Wisdom Publications.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human Behaviour. Macmillan.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. London: PublicAffairs.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour. Language, 35(1), 26–58.