While his warnings resonate during periods of uncertainty, economists caution that technological shifts historically create new forms of employment even as they eliminate others. (Image: Shutterstock)
Artificial intelligence is back at the centre of market anxiety.
A speculative macro report imagining an AI-driven economic crisis by 2028 has unsettled investors. Around the same time, fintech firm Block announced plans to cut roughly 4,000 jobs, citing structural shifts enabled by AI. Into that debate stepped Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki, who argued that artificial intelligence will disproportionately benefit business owners while putting wage earners at risk.
Here’s how these threads connect — and what they actually signal.
Robert Kiyosaki framed the layoffs as evidence of a broader economic shift. His core argument is consistent with his long-held philosophy: those who own productive assets benefit from technological change, while those dependent on salaries face vulnerability.
In his view, AI dramatically increases productivity. If a company can generate the same or higher revenue with fewer employees, profits rise — and shareholders gain. Workers, however, may find their roles automated.
His message echoes a theme from Rich Dad Poor Dad: don’t rely solely on wages; build or own assets that generate income.
Critics note that Kiyosaki frequently predicts financial crises and promotes alternative assets such as Bitcoin, gold and silver. While his warnings resonate during periods of uncertainty, economists caution that technological shifts historically create new forms of employment even as they eliminate others.
Also read: AI must empower, not replace human creativity, Says Siddaramaiah at Bengaluru GAFX
What Happened at Block?
Block’s job cuts were not positioned as a distress move. CEO Jack Dorsey said the company remains financially strong but is reorganising around AI tools that allow smaller teams to operate more efficiently.
Markets responded positively, with shares jumping in after-hours trading. Investors often reward cost-cutting measures that improve margins, especially when companies cite productivity gains from automation.
The episode reinforced a growing perception: AI is no longer experimental — it is influencing workforce decisions at major firms.
The ‘2028 Global Intelligence Crisis’ Scenario
Fueling concerns further was a widely circulated macro research note titled The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis.
The report does not claim to predict the future. Instead, it models a hypothetical scenario in which rapid adoption of autonomous AI agents leads to large-scale white-collar displacement by mid-2028.
Economic output appears strong, but wage income declines
The authors introduce the idea of “Ghost GDP” — a situation where automated production keeps headline economic growth elevated, but fewer workers share in the income.
While framed as a thought experiment exploring extreme downside risks, the report contributed to what traders described as an “AI scare trade,” triggering volatility in technology stocks.
Also read: ‘Suicides from ChatGPT, none from Grok’: Elon Musk’s attack on OpenAI
Historically, technological revolutions — from industrial machinery to the internet — have displaced certain roles while creating entirely new industries. Many economists argue AI will follow a similar pattern, though the speed of change may be faster.
Productivity gains can increase overall economic output
Governments can respond with policy tools if disruption accelerates
Consumer demand adapts over time
However, there is broad agreement on one point: AI is beginning to affect cognitive and white-collar work, not just manual labour. That makes the current transition distinct from previous automation cycles.
So, What Should Workers and Investors Take From This?
Kiyosaki’s statement simplifies a complex issue but highlights a real tension. AI is a productivity tool. Productivity gains typically benefit capital owners first. How broadly those gains are shared depends on policy, corporate strategy, and labour adaptation.
The 2028 crisis scenario is not a forecast of collapse. Block’s layoffs are not evidence of an economic meltdown. But both developments underscore a structural shift underway.
Artificial intelligence is moving from innovation to integration.
The long-term outcome will likely depend less on whether AI exists — and more on who controls it, who benefits from it, and how quickly economies adapt.
