unemployment

Zen and the Art of Dissatisfaction – Part 32

/ Mikko Ijäs / Jätä kommentti

The Impact of Unemployment

In my previous posts I have been writing about Universal Basic Income (UBI). This would solve many issues related to unemployment as it would pretty much make it disappear. Unemployment is a vast problem and it has many has far-reaching effects, not only on an individual’s financial stability but also on their mental health and social identity. In many Western societies, much of an individual’s identity is shaped by their profession. This social construct is so ingrained that in casual interactions, one of the first questions asked is often, ”What do you do for a living?” However, for the unemployed, such questions can evoke a sense of discomfort and even shame. The notion of self-worth becomes deeply entangled with one’s employment status, and unemployment can trigger a series of social and psychological challenges. This post explores how unemployment leads to poverty, mental health issues, and intergenerational trauma, and underscores the need for systemic change to address these social and economic disparities.

In Western societies, people are often defined by their occupation. This identity construction is reinforced in everyday social settings, where one of the most common icebreakers is the question of what someone does for a living. For those without employment, these encounters can be awkward or even painful. Ironically, while people are eager to discuss their professions and often define others by their job titles in social settings, few would want their occupation to be engraved on their tombstone. For example, one does not often see epitaphs reading, ”Here lies Teuvo Virtanen, a knowledgeable and self-directed YEL product manager.” It seems people wish to define themselves through their family, pets, hobbies, and interests, rather than by their job. Despite this, unemployment, and the poverty it brings, are still viewed as deeply shameful in modern society. This societal stigma worsens the experience of being unemployed, reinforcing feelings of worthlessness.

The Psychological and Social Effects of Unemployment

The financial uncertainty caused by unemployment extends beyond the individual; it can also impact relationships, family dynamics, and children’s futures. Unemployed individuals often experience higher rates of mental health disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. It is often impossible to tell whether these mental health issues preceded the unemployment or resulted from it, creating a vicious cycle. The need for mental health treatment is exacerbated by the financial barriers that prevent unemployed individuals from accessing healthcare, further deepening the crisis. Additionally, bureaucratic requirements, such as being forced to sell one’s car to qualify for unemployment benefits, make it even harder for individuals to regain stability.

The strain caused by unemployment extends to more than just financial difficulties. The stress of living in poverty can lead to mental health problems such as depression, and can also increase the likelihood of substance abuse and violent behaviour. While these are real issues that impact society at large, the solution is not to force unemployed people into any job available. Doing so would only exacerbate the problem. Unemployed individuals are found across all social classes and professions, and it would be unfair to compel a highly educated researcher who has lost their job to accept work as a cleaner, especially when they are not eligible for unemployment benefits.

The Impact on Children: Intergenerational Trauma

Children are the most vulnerable in situations where unemployment and poverty are prevalent. Issues within the family can often have lasting effects on children, leading to trauma that manifests in the form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Dutch-born American psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk has been one of the leading researchers to bring attention to the issue of trauma-based stress disorders in the West. Van der Kolk (2014) references the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) study, led by researchers Robert Anda and Vincent Felitti, which aimed to examine the prevalence and effects of harmful childhood experiences.

The ACE study revealed that traumatic childhood experiences were more common than previously thought. Two-thirds of participants in the ACE study had experienced trauma during childhood, with significant negative impacts on their lives. Around 10% of participants reported frequently being verbally abused by their parents or other household members, while more than 25% had suffered physical violence in their family. Over 28% of female participants and 16% of male participants had been sexually abused. Furthermore, 12.5% had witnessed their mothers being physically assaulted.

The ACE study included a scoring system for traumatic childhood experiences, with participants receiving points based on their responses to various questions about abuse. The study found that 87% of participants scored at least 2 points on the ACE scale, and one in six participants scored 4 or more points. Those who scored 4 or more points reported significant challenges in learning and behaviour, and these traumatic experiences followed them into adulthood. High ACE scores were directly associated with issues in work, family life, and life expectancy.

Van der Kolk notes that women with high ACE scores (4 points or more) were 66% more likely to suffer from chronic depression, and men with similar scores had a 35% chance. As ACE scores increased, so did the likelihood of depression, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviour. Suicidal attempts increased by 5000% when ACE scores rose from 0 to 6.

Perhaps one of the most shocking findings from the ACE study was the correlation between ACE scores and sexual violence. Only 5% of women with a score of 0 had been victims of rape, while 33% of women with a score of 4 had been raped. Van der Kolk explains that children who witness domestic violence are at significantly greater risk of entering violent relationships themselves later in life.

Addressing the Root Causes: Economic Inequality and Public Health

Economic inequality and poverty are not only detrimental to individual well-being but are also deeply ingrained in society’s broader health challenges. According to Bessel van der Kolk, eliminating child abuse and improving economic conditions could lead to significant public health benefits, including reductions in depression, alcoholism, suicide rates, drug abuse, and family violence. The financial cost of child abuse has been estimated to be higher than that of cancer or heart disease, yet its societal impact remains largely ignored.

In his work When the Body Says No (2011), Hungarian-Canadian doctor Gabor Maté discusses how access to regular and adequate income is one of the most significant health-promoting factors. Wealthier individuals have the means to provide their children with good daycare, access to quality education, and healthier lifestyles. On the other hand, the poor often have few choices and may resort to leaving their children in the care of abusive family members. These socio-economic disparities have a profound impact on mental and physical health. I will continue this topic on my next post.

Conclusion

Addressing poverty and unemployment is not only crucial for the immediate well-being of individuals but is also a smart long-term investment in public health. Reducing poverty would lead to improved mental health outcomes, enhanced safety, and lower crime rates. In particular, reducing childhood trauma and its lifelong effects would be a significant step toward a healthier, more equitable society. The solution does not lie in forcing people into any job, but in addressing the root causes of economic inequality and providing support for those affected by unemployment.

References
Bregman, R. (2017). Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World. The Correspondent.
Kolk, B. van der. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Viking.
Maté, G. (2011). When the Body Says No: Exploring the Stress-Disease Connection. Wiley.
Anda, R., Felitti, V. J., et al. (1998). The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study: Implications for Child Health. Pediatrics, 101(3), 573-578.

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.