Devina Mehra, the founder and CMD of asset management firm First Global, feels that there is something to be learned from history going into the current technology and artificial intelligence (AI)-led disruption in the job market.
In a post titled ‘Technology disrupting jobs and what history tells us’ on professional networking site LinkedIn today, the ace investor noted that past patterns show technology creates new jobs even while it disrupts the status quo.
Technology takes away jobs, but also creates new ones, feels Devina Mehra
“At least 50-70% of the tasks that Indian bankers were doing in the early 80s have been automated. On a static basis it would have appeared that the bulk of banking jobs would disappear… But the employment in banking has gone up, not down!” she said.
What does this mean for the future? Mehra noted that this pattern “has been seen from the time any new technology has come in — from ginning and weaving machines to motor cars to the printing press.”
So, for those anxious over losing jobs due to AI, Mehra has some comfort to offer in the unknown. “A whole lot of jobs that existed at that point in time were projected to disappear… and actually did vanish… but what happened next is the real story. Human beings have never been able to predict the eventual impact of any new technology on employment. Never.”
The reactions were mixed: ‘AI is different… not BPO… will cause its own demise’
One user expressed disagreement with Mehra’s post in the comments, noting that even with examples from history, AI is different. She explained, “Earlier technologies automated manual tasks; AI automates cognition—analysis, writing, coding, decision-making—across sectors at once. The speed of adoption is unprecedented, leaving little time for workforce adjustment. More importantly, one AI system can replace entire layers of white-collar roles at near-zero marginal cost. Job creation may occur, but it is unlikely to be symmetric—fewer jobs, higher skill thresholds, and greater concentration of income and power. This isn’t just disruption. It’s a permanent structural shift in how work, wages, and value are distributed.”
Another user noted that the speed of adoption could be what makes or breaks any sector in the AI age. He wrote, “Given history Indian banks will neither adopt AI in full-fledged manner and will keep resisting and delaying nor will they take conscious disruptive cost reduction!! BUT AI IS NOT Y2K Or BPO play!! Let’s watch it Playout”.
Another user felt that the wider economic impact of AI disruption on employment and jobs may not be simple. He wrote: “If most/all white-collar jobs go away, then: 1. Who will buy anything? (no indirect taxes), 2. if no one buys anything who will produce anything? 3. Who will pay income taxes? 4. Who will have bank accounts? no banks, 5. If no one buys anything, they cannot have phones or laptops or electricty or internet services… and if no one has money, phones, laptops, electricty, or internet services, then who will subscribe to these AI services?”
He called the situation a paradox, where “AI will cause its own demise since no one will be able to subscribe to these AI services”.
There were also some who agreed with Mehra. One such user wrote, “Completely agree. History shows technology doesn’t eliminate work. It reallocates human effort to higher-value tasks we couldn’t imagine before. The bigger question is whether our education and skilling systems are evolving fast enough to match the new roles being created.”
One more user agreed that people may be just debating the fear, as “every major disruption looks like a net destroyer in the short run and a net creator in the long run.” Another added, “The real unknown isn’t whether jobs will exist, it’s what those jobs will look like. Are companies and governments investing enough in reskilling to make this transition inclusive?”