Listen to Steve read this post below (6m audio)

A huge amount of jobs people do are already unnecessary.

Therefore, AI or a robot being able to do these jobs is totally irrelevant. Of course, this isn’t you! But it was definitely me…

Early on in my career, before I started my first software company, I worked in marketing for multinational consumer goods companies. I was in brand management — and much of what you can do depends on your marketing budget. On a number of occasions, my budgets got cut. This was so the company could make its profit numbers for the year. It meant I could no longer do much of the work that was planned to generate sales. I literally did nothing for months on end.

I mean, I did some busy work — ran reports, did some market share updates to present to management, stuff like that — but none of it mattered. It was totally pointless. I had days and weeks where I just surfed the web, went to meetings, spoke to people in the office and had coffees.

I was earning well over $100k, and this was over 20 years ago. And I wasn’t alone — others in the firms I was at were in the same situation. And it wasn’t just once. Of the 4 companies I worked at, it happened at 2 of them. Months of getting paid for doing nothing. In addition to this, all of these companies had many of the people in their corporate head offices doing ‘internal busy work’. Stuff someone wants done inside the building, but has no impact on the performance of the company or wider society — other than to give the person doing the work an income. I imagine there’s a good chunk of these in every firm and government department.

Of course, this doesn’t mean the people doing these ‘bullshit jobs’ aren’t diligent and don’t want to do their best work; it’s just a reflection of the true abundance that exists in a modern technological economy. An abundance which arrived not long after industrialisation. It’s worth remembering that before the Industrial Revolution, 90% of humans worked in food production; now it’s around 5% in Western economies.

In the corporate environment, lots of people are there simply because the company can afford it, not because they create anything. A colleague said to me: “Unless you’re in the factory making the products that go in the brown cardboard boxes, or driving the truck to deliver it, not much that happens at head office really matters – we are riding the work that was done years ago.” I never forgot that.

Just think back to COVID times. (Sorry!) We found out very quickly which jobs were necessary. I wasn’t one of them. It was all the functional stuff — people making the food, keeping the lights on, helping the sick and infirmed. During the pandemic, an estimated 34–43% of the workforce were in essential industries. So when we take this uncomfortable reality into account — what is actually essential — and add this to the people in other non-essential industries, who are, let’s call them, optional workers, then we can really see the truth of being replaced by machines.

The net outcome of all this is quite simple. Humans invent work because we can. Because the company can afford it, and because we want to have a little empire of people under us — not because there is no other way to get things done, or even because a task needs done at all.

It’s one of the main reasons (though there are others) – why I don’t panic when people say AI will cause a job apocalypse. And when it comes to recent announcements of companies laying off staff due to AI, it’s mostly to justify cost cuts and be seen as innovative, applying AI and thereby drive a share price boost. And of course, these jobs will pop up somewhere else. They always do.

Steve

Share

** Get me in to do a keynote at your next event and as a blog reader – get 2 nights free at my luxury farmhouse on the Bellarine Peninsula.

Listen to Steve read this post below (15m audio)

Fortunes are made because they usually require big investment, the building out of infrastructure, and shifts in the geopolitical landscape. Fortunes are lost because of incumbents ignore these shifts because they take so long. During the build-out, bubbles often burst, allowing yesterday’s heroes to say, “I told you so…” before they eventually get usurped. Big Media missing the internet is still the best example.

The second most common question I get asked after a keynote is about big trends. And with that in mind, here are my top 7 big shifts—the shifts we’ve all got time to navigate around to adapt or start something new and big.

1. Deglobalisation

In the 1990s and early 2000s, global trade typically grew twice as fast as global GDP. In 2026, the WTO projects trade will grow by only 1.9%, while GDP is expected to grow by 2.8%. Global merchandise trade (the sum of world exports and imports) is now 44.8% of global GDP, down from its all-time high of 53.3% just over a decade ago. Remember, these shifts take decades. The good news is that this gives us time to recalibrate around them.

2. Re-shoring

We are moving from a “just in time” to “just in case” Economy. Manufacturing will return to high-cost labour markets. While Covid showed us the risks of international reliance, AI and robotics are about to remove the advantage developing markets currently have in manufacturing goods.

In the 1990s, the West literally taught China how to manufacture quality at scale. It was done via joint ventures from the promise of lower-cost goods to sell in home markets. Fast forward 25 years, and China has now surpassed the West in all forms of manufacturing. But the most important of these is humanoid robots. I’ve written about them before here, and I believe this shift is bigger than informational AI. I call it Physical AI—where we put brains into machines, especially human-shaped ones.

We quite literally need humanoid robots for two reasons. One, we don’t have enough humans; our global population has now turned the corner into decline based on global birth rates per female. Two, we have a human-shaped world. Houses, hospitals, and retail environments need flexible, dextrous robots who can do a task the first time they’ve seen it or literally had it explained to them. That’s coming quicker than we think. Expect to have humanoid robots which follow verbal and visual instructions with a PhD in every subject for around $30,000 by 2030. Yes, you’ll own one. And when this happens, we’ll get China’s robots to help make our robots and reverse what China did to the West, using their technology and processes to reinvent ours.

3. AI as Infrastructure

AI is no longer a feature, but a foundational utility of the 21st century. There are a lot of clues around this idea because at the same time we hear about huge amounts of investment (up to $7 trillion globally by 2030), we are also hearing rumblings about whether this will ever get a return on investment and people not wanting it built near where they live (all the while using Generative AI a zillion times a day). This is what has happened every time we’ve had large infrastructure shifts since industrialisation.

As of today, the investment in AI now rivals investment in roads and power grids. The US Interstate Highway System took 35 years to complete at an average annual cost of $18.8 billion; the AI data center build-out is currently spending that same annual sum every 5 weeks. It raises important questions about corporate power and ownership of the major factors of production. AI falls into that category and shouldn’t be in private hands. Smart countries will remove it from private operators, just like we did with the electricity grid in the Gilded Age.

4. Data is Energy

Big Tech is pivoting to becoming global energy titans; they have to in order to sustain the massive power requirements of AI. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are securing their “compute” future by investing heavily in nuclear power, ranging from small modular reactors to reviving dormant plants like Three Mile Island. This shift blurs the line between information and physical energy, as AI data centers—already consuming 5% of the U.S. power supply—are projected to triple their demand by 2030.

This “Big Energy” move serves as a strategic “Monopoly 2.0” that allows tech giants to expand while avoiding antitrust scrutiny. By applying the Amazon Web Services (AWS) model to the power grid, these firms will generate excess carbon-free energy and sell it back to consumers, potentially displacing traditional utility and oil firms. This consolidation of AI, information, and infrastructure grants Big Tech a level of influence that rivals nation-states, positioning them as the new global colonizers of the 21st century.

5. The Conglomerate Comeback

There’s a reason Big Tech is doing so well in the share market. They remembered it is better to own than rent. And so, whenever they can, they use their excess funds to build or acquire the resources they need to expand. Outsourcing creates global shock risk. Building a giant supply chain in-house now fits with the emergent market dynamics listed above.

Take Amazon, for example: it didn’t outsource its supply chain—it bought every layer of it, then opened each layer up as a paid service to competitors. AWS was the template. Amazon owns 110+ cargo jets, 175,000 delivery vehicles, 1 million+ warehouse robots (via the Kiva acquisition), 185+ fulfilment centers, its own nuclear power plant, 450 satellites in orbit, and 500+ Whole Foods stores. This pattern is also evident in most of what Musk is doing, as well as Google. The most powerful companies of yesteryear did this too: in the 1920s, Henry Ford built a massive, pre-fabricated industrial town in the Amazon rainforest to secure a direct source of rubber for car tires. During the peak of globalisation, companies moved to focus on singular core businesses. That’s now in reverse.

6. Inequality as Policy

I’ll start with this: the world’s 12 richest billionaires now own more wealth than the bottom half of humanity (more than 4 billion people). It’s worse in the USA. Elon Musk has more wealth than the bottom 51% of the entire nation. The Gini coefficient is how economists measure inequality: zero indicates everyone has exactly the same wealth; a score of 1.0 means one person owns everything. The US is above 0.8 and in Australia, it is 0.61. It’s not your imagination—wealth is accumulating at the top. It’s why our economy lives in the extremes: people with 10 houses and people who can’t afford a house—or as I like to call it, the Tiffany’s and Costco Economy.

We can expect the government to start responding heavily with wealth taxes in addition to income taxes. They have to—otherwise, it will end in war, famine, or revolution; it always has. In Australia tomorrow, the new budget will be released with policies that hit inequality around investment properties and capital accumulation. But what we really need is a courageous government to go hard on corporate tax avoidance (easy to fix actually, just tax them on 5% of revenue), billionaires, and resources taxes. Even the CEO’s I work with of large public corporations agree who they work for should pay more tax – we all do.

I think and hope they are starting to get the message that they should chase the top end of town, not everyone somewhere in the middle trying to get ahead and secure a dignified retirement. The middle class was a great post-WWII invention and one that is worth maintaining. Globally, 74% of millionaires actually agree with increasing wealth taxes, as do I. Billionaires would do well to think the same way (be less greedy) if they want to remain at the top of the tree.

7. Re-nationalisation of Infrastructure

Smart governments are taking back the keys to essential services in the name of national security and resilience. The UK launched Great British Energy in 2025 with £8.3 billion in public capital to drive the clean-power transition. In France, the full nationalisation of EDF has allowed the government to cap energy prices and commit €72.8 billion to new nuclear reactors—the kind of long-term, nation-scale investment private markets were unwilling to make.

In Australia, it is mostly just rumblings—but a huge majority of voters want higher taxes on our fossil fuels, and public infrastructure back in the hands of “the public.” Simply because the jury is in: our services are now often worse and somehow cost more. Australia’s privatized services have evolved into a mandatory cost-of-living tax, with utility price increases consistently outstripping inflation. Electricity leads the surge with a 20% price hike following the “rebate cliff,” with electricity bills nearly five times the rate of inflation. The Transurban Tax evolves from a terrible deal where the government allows a fixed 4.25% escalation in prices per year. Meanwhile, corporatized water utilities have resulted in water prices doubling the inflation rate over the past decade. People are sick of it.

Now that people are aware of the heist, smart governments (let’s hope we get one) will claw back essential services, probably in a 51/49 private deal, so they can manage the cost of living and infrastructure investment, and provide employment and training enclaves.

Share

– – –

Keep Thinking,

Steve.

** Get me in to do a keynoteat your next event and as a blog reader – get 2 nights free at my luxury farmhouse on the Bellarine Peninsula.

Listen to Steve read this post below (7 min audio)

Control: When it comes to control, Zuckerberg has total voting control of Meta (a US$1.71 trillion corporation). Despite only holding 14%, he has 61% of the voting rights and can never be usurped.

Virtualisation: The average internet user spends 6–7 hours of their waking life (around 37% of their life) on screen, and 31% of all their online time on one of Mr Zuckerberg’s platforms.

While I’m not sure this has worked out well for humanity (especially teens), it has worked out well for Uncle Mark, who currently has a net worth of US$239 billion. And despite the $88 billion failure of the Metaverse, the idea to create an AI digital twin of Zuckerberg has legs (See what I did there?)

The Zuckerberg AI Clone

The short summary of his plan goes a little like this: Mark Zuckerberg is developing a photo-realistic AI clone of himself. It will facilitate interactions with and provide feedback to employees. It is to be trained on his voice, mannerisms, and even his strategic thinking. According to reports, his 3D avatar is designed to increase efficiency and employee connection (hmm, really?), by handling meetings and routine tasks, reflecting a shift toward “founder mode” which will allow him to remove himself from the day-to-day and focus on AI strategy.

I think it runs deeper. This is the preamble to the world’s first AI CEO. Because the only person Zuckerberg would ever allow to replace him would be ‘himself’.

This is his plan to be the CEO after his death — with the AI virtual posthumous version of himself. Or possibly if he steps down from the role — albeit unlikely.

It raises some interesting questions. Would it be legally possible for a virtual AI CEO? They’d probably do a better job in many cases. Could this then result in the CEO not having to be paid, saving inordinate millions in salary? Or could that salary go to the owners of the AI?

At present, AI can’t be a legal person — it can’t sign contracts, own anything, be sued, or be held accountable. In 2026, corporate law is still built on human responsibility — fiduciary duty, judgment, consequences. When things go wrong, someone has to wear it. Right now, that’s still a human. But I’m not convinced that won’t change. We need to remember that ‘corporations’ were literally invented to be quasi legal entities to reduce human liability. As far as I can tell, it is only a matter of time before AIs get human rights to do all of the things I’ve mentioned above which are required to run a company.

Your Life, Their Asset

But it goes further. Zuckerberg might be training an AI version of himself, but it’s not that much of a stretch to train an AI version of anyone who uses any Meta platform. All those pictures, thoughts, mannerisms, ideas, value systems which Meta has accumulated in the many posts most people make are — wait for it — the property of Meta. This is all clearly laid out in the updated terms and conditions you never read and said yes to.

Yep — he’ll launch a version of your mum, dad or daughter. The kicker is that you’ll have to ‘pay him’ to have continued communication with your loved ones after they die. The AI version of himself he is creating is a test case to make AI posthumous versions of Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp user relationships … he intends to monetise — forever.

Zuckerberg is very into forever — from both a control and customer perspective.

If you think it’s unlikely, remember their record and the atrocities (yes, atrocities) committed in the pursuit of profit. Significant anxiety and depression tied to heavy use; Internal research linking Instagram to declining teen mental health and self-harm; a California jury finding them guilty for addictive design targeting young users; under-13 data collection without consent; ignoring known child-grooming activity in DMs; outsourcing moderation to low-paid workers, exposing them to abuse, rape, murder, and suicide – many reporting severe PTSD; and the live-streaming of real-world terror attacks such as that in Christchurch, turning an atrocity into content. Individually disturbing. Together, it’s a system optimised for attention at any human cost.

Legal Battle Ahead

The most important legal developments for AI are still undetermined — yet simple. We must own the rights to our own personas — in all its forms. Our face, thoughts, actions, voices and every form of likeness need to be copyrighted to ourselves, forever.

And if you thought that lawyers will be out of a job due to AI — then you need to revise that idea … some of the most important work they’ll ever do, is only just beginning.

Keep thinking

Steve.

** Get me into do an AI keynote at your next event and as a blog reader – get 2 nights free at my luxury farmhouse on the Bellarine Peninsula.