2 Sources
[1]
Economist Steve Hanke says AI won't destroy most jobs because it costs more than hiring humans
Serving tech enthusiasts for over 25 years. TechSpot means tech analysis and advice you can trust. A hot potato: A top economist has said that AI will not destroy most of the world's jobs, and his rationale seems totally logical: doing so would simply be far more expensive than employing humans. He also believes that this expense is what will prevent AI from becoming a freely available miracle machine that will remove the need for money from society, a vision espoused by Elon Musk. Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior economist on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, doesn't buy into a lot of the AI hype - both the good and the bad. One of the biggest concerns about AI is its impact on jobs. We've already seen tens of thousands of layoffs in the last few years that came as a direct or indirect result of the technology, but Hanke told Business Insider that a complete apocalypse that leaves most people unemployed is just a fantasy for a very practical reason. "Businesses will not be firing everybody and replacing them with AI," he said, because this would cost companies more money than hiring humans. Hanke said it's the same reason why the idea that the most advanced AI will be free to use and almost costless to run will never happen. "This belief is based on a disconnect from reality, as well as a good dose of idiotic economic reasoning," he said. "AI is incredibly costly; it is very resource-intensive," Hanke continued. "It requires huge amounts of water, power, and physical capital." Hanke also took aim at some the AI industry's so-called visionaries, labelling them "charlatans and hucksters." He said that when they liken AI to software, it's an "apples and oranges" comparison, given that AI continuously costs money to run whereas in most cases, software doesn't incur additional costs for customers after being developed. Credit: Financial Times As for how far the "AI revolution" will go and whether, or when, the bubble will burst, Hanke believes that will be decided by the "cost of scarce resources that are gobbled up by AI." The professor's view contrasts with those of AI evangelists such as Nvidia boss Jensen Huang, who have long argued that the astronomical price of AI hardware and operations will decrease as efficiency gains are made. The amount of money being poured into AI and its infrastructure is now counted in the hundreds of billions. Google and Tesla are two companies spending so much on the technology that they just recorded negative cash flows - it was the first time Google experienced this since it went public more than two decades ago. In July, SoftBank's founder and largest shareholder, Masayoshi Son, said developing and deploying AI for society at large would cost $5 trillion a year through 2040, yet he was quite adamant that there was no AI bubble. Adata chairman Chen Li-bai, meanwhile, said an AI bubble should not even be discussed seriously until 2040 or even 2050. Musk, meanwhile, believes people should stop saving for retirement as "money won't matter" in a decade or two, as AI will have taken most jobs and we will all be living off a universal high income handed out by the government. As for jobs, there have been recent signs to support Hanke's view. An increasing number of companies, such as Ford and Klarna, are rehiring laid-off workers after discovering the systems that replaced them perform worse. In June, it was reported that multiple studies showed more employers rehiring workers for recently eliminated positions after overestimating AI's productivity gains and cost savings - or, at the very least, regretting the decision.
[2]
Steve Hanke Says AI Won't Replace Workers Because It's 'Incredibly Costly:' 'Businesses Will Not Be Firin
Economist Steve Hanke argued that artificial intelligence (AI) is unlikely to replace workers on a massive scale because deploying it remains too expensive. The Cost of AI "The idea that artificial intelligence will be free to use and virtually costless to provide is delusional and dumb," Hanke told Business Insider. He added that AI is "incredibly costly" and "very resource intensive," requiring "huge amounts of water, power, and physical capital" such as graphics chips. Hanke also pushed back against predictions of widespread unemployment driven by AI. "Businesses will not be firing everybody and replacing them with AI," he said, arguing that in many cases employing people remains less expensive than deploying advanced AI systems. Differing Views on AI The comments add to an increasingly divided debate over AI investment and adoption. Hanke's comments come as Wall Street continues to debate whether the AI boom is sustainable. Earlier this month, 'Big Short' investor Michael Burry argued investors were increasingly questioning whether Big Tech's massive AI spending could deliver adequate returns. Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo courtesy: Shutterstock Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.
Share
Copy Link
Johns Hopkins economist Steve Hanke argues AI won't destroy most jobs because deploying it costs more than hiring humans. He calls AI "incredibly costly" and resource-intensive, requiring huge amounts of water, power, and physical capital, challenging predictions from AI evangelists like Jensen Huang and Elon Musk.
Steve Hanke, a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and former senior economist on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, has challenged widespread fears about AI job replacement with a straightforward economic argument: AI costs make mass workforce displacement financially impractical
1
. "Businesses will not be firing everybody and replacing them with AI," Hanke told Business Insider, because deploying advanced AI systems remains more expensive than employing humans in most cases2
. This perspective directly contradicts predictions from AI evangelists like Jensen Huang and Elon Musk, who have argued that efficiency gains will eventually make AI deployment economically superior to human labor.Source: TechSpot
Hanke's reasoning centers on the resource-intensive nature of artificial intelligence infrastructure. "AI is incredibly costly; it is very resource-intensive," he explained, noting that it "requires huge amounts of water, power, and physical capital" including graphics chips
1
. This makes human labor more economical in many business contexts. The economist also dismissed the notion that advanced AI will become freely available, calling this belief "delusional and dumb" and based on "a disconnect from reality, as well as a good dose of idiotic economic reasoning"1
. Unlike traditional software that incurs minimal ongoing costs after development, AI continuously consumes resources and money to operate, making the comparison between the two an "apples and oranges" situation1
.The mounting costs of AI infrastructure have already created financial strain for major technology companies. Google and Tesla both recently recorded negative cash flows due to their massive AI spending, with Google experiencing this for the first time since going public more than two decades ago
1
. The scale of investment is staggering: SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son estimated that developing and deploying AI for society would cost $5 trillion annually through 20401
. Meanwhile, companies like Ford and Klarna have begun rehiring laid-off workers after discovering that AI systems perform worse than the humans they replaced1
. Multiple studies from June reported employers regretting AI-driven layoffs after overestimating productivity gains and cost savings1
.Related Stories
Hanke didn't hold back in criticizing what he sees as misleading narratives from the AI industry, labeling some prominent figures as "charlatans and hucksters"
1
. His assessment stands in stark contrast to predictions from Elon Musk, who has suggested people should stop saving for retirement because "money won't matter" in a decade or two, as AI will have taken most jobs and governments will provide universal high income1
. Nvidia's Jensen Huang has long argued that astronomical AI costs will decrease as efficiency improvements materialize, but Hanke remains skeptical1
. The economist believes the extent of the "AI revolution" and whether the bubble will burst depends entirely on the "cost of scarce resources that are gobbled up by AI"1
.
Source: Benzinga
Hanke's perspective aligns with growing Wall Street skepticism about AI investment sustainability. Michael Burry, the investor famous for predicting the 2008 financial crisis, recently argued that investors are increasingly questioning whether Big Tech's massive AI spending can deliver adequate returns
2
. This debate intensifies as hundreds of billions pour into AI infrastructure, with some industry observers like Adata chairman Chen Li-bai suggesting an AI bubble shouldn't be discussed seriously until 2040 or 20501
. The disconnect between AI hype and economic reality raises critical questions about mass job destruction fears and whether current investment levels can be justified by actual productivity improvements and cost savings in the workplace.Summarized by
Navi
[1]
28 Apr 2026•Business and Economy

07 Nov 2025•Business and Economy

03 Oct 2024•Business and Economy
