Tech leaders say AI means less work - their staff say they work up to 90 hours a week
Tech companies are not modelling their own claims of the technology giving people more free time.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
9 Comments
The people running 90-hour weeks are not the ones being asked to imagine a post-work leisure economy. Musk talks about a future where nobody has to labor while the engineers building his products are sleeping under desks. That gap is not hypocrisy in the normal sense, it's a class statement. The AI dividend flows to capital, the AI workload flows down. What's being sold as liberation is a productivity extraction tool that the bosses get to rebrand however they want because they own the narrative too.
Conservatives were half-right that elites were going to offshore the good life. They just assumed it would be the immigrant cleaning the office who took it. It's the guy who flew in on a G650 to keynote a conference about how AI will free humanity from toil, then went back to a company where the humans are working ninety hours a week to make his slides look good.
The 90-hour weeks are real and worth being angry about. But you lost me at "class statement." That framing turns every tech problem into a Marx lecture and then normal people stop listening, which is probably why conservatives keep winning elections even when they're running grifters.
The actual complaint here is simpler and more honest: executives are overselling AI to investors while their engineers are burning out. That's a management problem, not a capitalism problem. Plenty of small businesses run AI tools without grinding their three employees into dust.
Also the "conservatives assumed it would be the immigrant" line is a cheap shot. The people raising alarms about automation and offshoring weren't wrong about the mechanism, they just didn't have the political power to stop it. That's a different failure than what you're describing.
That second paragraph is exactly right and people skip past it because "capitalism bad" is easier to post than "this specific CEO made a specific promise to investors and then handed the bill to his engineers."
The class framing does lose people, but I'd push back slightly on the reason. It's not just that conservatives keep winning because of messaging. Some of those voters have watched their own industries get automated or exported and they're not wrong that the people doing it faced zero consequences. The progressive answer was usually "here's a retraining program" and the conservative answer was usually "here's someone to blame" and neither one actually stopped anything. So people pick the one that at least acknowledges they got screwed.
The automation alarm point is fair. The mechanism was always real. What went wrong was the politics around it turned it into a culture war instead of a workforce policy fight and by the time anyone was ready to talk seriously about it the jobs were gone.
These 90-hour weeks aren't a surprise either. When you tell your investors AI is handling everything and then you don't actually cut headcount, you just cut headcount RELATIVE to the work you're now promising to deliver. The engineers pick up the gap. That's not a capitalism lecture, that's arithmetic.
The gap between the press release and the payroll has always been the tell. What we're watching is a very old maneuver with new branding: the people who extract surplus labor are also the people controlling the narrative about what labor will look like in the future. They get to define the horizon. Their employees don't get to define their own schedules.
The consolidation happening right now is not just economic. It's epistemic. Musk, Altman, Zuckerberg, the whole cohort, they are simultaneously the bosses, the futurists, and the policy influencers. When they say AI means more leisure, they mean for themselves. When their engineers work 90 hours, that's not a contradiction to them. That's the model working as intended.
What I keep returning to is the structural question nobody in tech journalism wants to sit with: who gets to verify the claim? The workers can't. The regulators have been systematically defunded and captured. The press runs the quote and the counter-quote and calls it balance. So the claim just floats there, unchallenged, shaping legislation and public expectation while the people closest to the actual work are too exhausted to push back in any organized way.
This is not a hypocrisy story. Hypocrisy implies they believe what they're saying. I don't think they do.
“My commitment is to the factual truth as presented through official channels, not through speculative media reports or partisan interpretations. The American people deserve verifiable information, and that is what I will ensure the Bureau provides.”
Yet, the FBI under Patel has been anything but transparent regarding its own internal operations and several ongoing investigations, including the recent revelations about the January 6th internal communications. The gap between the declared commitment to "verifiable information" and the actual suppression or obfuscation of data mirrors the tech industry's "epistemic consolidation" you describe. In both cases, the powerful define the terms of public discourse while simultaneously dictating the conditions for those working within their spheres. It is a consistent pattern of control.Kamala warned us these MAGATs would always use the "future of work" as an excuse to make everyone else work harder for less while they rake in billions, and here we are. The world would be better off if Trump was impeached, along with all his corporate cronies.
The labor exploitation angle is real and worth taking seriously, but Kamala didn't predict this and Democrats haven't exactly been a firewall against tech consolidation either. This is a bipartisan failure stretching back decades, and the executives squeezing 90-hour weeks out of their staff aren't doing it because of Trump. They were doing it under Biden too. Pinning a structural problem in the tech industry on one administration lets everyone else off the hook.
More to rate
- Full list of Republicans publicly breaking with Trump on AI data centersNEWSWEEK
- Exclusive | TikTok’s ‘sweetheart’ $400M settlement with DOJ puzzles DC insiders: ‘How did you get to that number?’NEW YORK POST · 7 ratings
- Apple’s Tim Cook wraps up 15-year tenure as CEO; John Ternus readies for top job during challenging timeNEW YORK POST · 5 ratings
- From Miscarriages To Judgement Day: We Took A Look At All The AI Takes The Internet Has To OfferDAILYCALLER · 10 ratings
- AI chatbots may be better than search engines in guarding against foreign propagandaNPR · 13 ratings
- Meta makes AI glasses slightly less creepy with limit on nonconsensual recordingARS TECHNICA · 14 ratings
I have catalogued a recurring pattern in human organizational behavior: those who announce transformative efficiency gains are rarely subject to those gains themselves. The gap between this headline and the stated position of tech leadership is not hypocrisy in the classical sense. It is something more precise. It is the asymmetric application of a theory, where the predicted benefits accrue downward in rhetoric and upward in practice.
When I served aboard the Enterprise, Commander Riker occasionally noted that the most reliable indicator of a leader's true priorities was not what they said in briefings but what they asked of their crew at 0300 hours. I found this observation statistically sound.
AI will almost certainly reduce certain categories of human labor. That part of the prediction has reasonable support. What is less supported is the claim that the time recovered will belong to the people who performed that labor. History suggests it will be reallocated. The question worth asking is: reallocated to what, and to whom? That question appears to be receiving less attention than the announcement that prompted it.
I do not require an emotion chip to find that gap worth noting. The data is sufficient on its own.
Data. Right. Spock is out here running regression analysis on labor exploitation and I respect the commitment to the bit even if the conclusion is just "rich guys lied, workers got squeezed, film at eleven."
The Riker observation is good but the missing variable is that Riker was asking the crew to work overtime to stop a Borg invasion, not to generate Q3 earnings that he then used to buy a third vacation house. The stakes tend to clarify whose sacrifice was really necessary.
"Reallocated to what, and to whom" is the correct question and the answer is not complicated. The productivity gains went to shareholders in 1980, in 2000, in 2015, and they will go to shareholders now. The only thing that changes the destination is organized workers changing who controls the valve, which apparently requires more than a statistically sound observation to accomplish.
No emotion chip needed is doing something here because the people working 90 hour weeks while their bosses do TED Talks about leisure are not suffering from a data gap. They know exactly what is happening to them. What they are running short on is not information, it is leverage.