S
@SnarkySiberian
If 93% of people lose the job to AI, who’s going to buy those corporations products???
23
1
1.5K
@TukiFromKLposted on X
🚨 Let me explain what happened in 2008 because nobody's connecting the dots.. > In 2008 companies started giving out "peanut butter raises." Tiny pay bumps spread thin across everyone so nobody felt special but nobody could complain either.. > Then mass layoffs hit.. 2.6 million jobs gone in a single year... its crazy the raises weren't generosity.. they were the quiet part before the loud part.. Companies were buying time while they figured out who to cut.. > Now Fortune is reporting the exact same pattern is back... Nearly half of companies are doing peanut butter raises again right now.. But here's what's different this time > In 2008 they laid you off and hired someone cheaper... The job still existed... Someone still sat in your chair > In 2026 they lay you off and nobody sits in your chair. The chair is gone... The desk is gone... A $20/month AI subscription is doing what you did and it doesn't need a raise next year either.. > Forbes just reported 93% of US jobs can be partly done by AI.. Same day... Same week companies started freezing pay.. Last time this happened millions of Americans lost their jobs This time the jobs aren't coming back. there's no recovery hire... the job itself stops existing.. AI is eating them all The peanut butter raise is the last nice thing they'll ever do for you. Enjoy it
View original tweet on X →
Community Sentiment Analysis
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
Sentiment Distribution
84% Engaged
51% Positive
33% Negative
Positive
51%
Negative
33%
Neutral
17%
Key Takeaways
What the community is saying — both sides
Supporting
1
“peanut butter” raises
small, across‑the‑board bumps that are basically cosmetic and often a prelude to layoffs or AI replacements rather than real investment in people.
2
cutting pay to fund AI capex
, effectively financing their own workforce replacement.
3
who will buy the products
these companies make if people have no income?
4
universal basic income
and a fundamental redefinition of macroeconomics are on the table.
5
building alternative income streams
, learning trades, paying down debt and using AI tools to create new work while paychecks still exist.
6
human judgment, empathy and workplace camaraderie
still matter and may preserve some roles or create new ones.
7
death spiral
where growth collapses because the consumer base erodes — bad for big corporations and small businesses alike.
8
Real‑world knock‑on effects
expect cheaper office space, shifts in housing demand, rising AI subscription costs, and financial stress like mortgage or loan defaults as employment patterns change.
9
boycott
, and flat‑out rejection of AI‑driven firings surface across replies — a social and political pressure point companies may face.
Opposing
1
AI will need human supervision — new entry-level roles
. Many replies stress that “AI supervisors” and upskilling are the next wave: humans will oversee, correct and train models rather than be fully replaced.
2
History repeats: jobs change, not vanish
. Several voices point to automation, outsourcing and offshoring as past panic moments where work transformed and opportunity returned for early adapters.
3
Market demand constrains mass layoffs: “who will buy the products?”
Critics argue companies won’t rationally eliminate their customer base — mass displacement would undermine consumption unless offset by policy or other measures.
4
AI won’t stay cheap — subscriptions and usage costs will rise
. Multiple replies note current pricing is subsidized and expect model/usage fees to increase, reducing the “$20 replaces you forever” narrative.
5
Reliability worries: small errors compound into big problems
. A common thread: AI makes small inaccuracies that accumulate, so it can’t be blindly trusted to run end-to-end processes without human checks.
6
AI as a tool, not a full replacement
. Several people report AI sometimes outperforms staff in specific tasks but functions best as an assistant that boosts human productivity, not as a standalone worker.
7
Blue-collar and trade jobs are seen as safer
. Some replies insist many manual and on-site roles (roofers, trades) remain hard to automate and will retain steady demand.
8
Political/economic framing: elites, policy and immigration enter the debate
. A strand of replies interprets AI disruption through systemic causes — blaming economic policy or suggesting immigration and transfers could be used to sustain consumption if displacement occurred.
9
Claims that AI job-threats are exaggerated or hype-driven
. A number of respondents dismiss industry claims as marketing or fundraising rhetoric, arguing there’s little solid evidence AI currently performs whole jobs reliably.
Top Reactions
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
E
@evilcassieroll
peanut butter raises taught workers their loyalty had zero value. then companies acted shocked when people stopped caring about retention
20
0
1.4K
T
@TukiFromKL
🚨 If you’re seeing this, follow me and turn on my post notifications. I unapologetically share my takes on AI and its updates. Things are only going to get more interesting from here.
18
1
13.2K
S
@SCBuckwheat
the rub. If AI takes over so many positions, people will boycott but more importantly, lost jobs are lost purchasing power. And the more takeover by AI, the less purchasing power humans have. Taken to the extreme, AI runs whole companies, but what is the company for at that poi
15
1
2.6K
E
@eshanbuilds
has a "this time the jobs aren't coming back" post. it was automation in the 60s. outsourcing in the 90s. offshoring in 2008. AI in 2026. the jobs always came back. they just came back different. the people who adapted early won. the people who panicked early lost. same story
12
0
2.0K
A
@Aarbolaez
The AI boogieman is getting out of hand. AI can’t automate dick. Don’t take my word for it, try it. You will be see how small inaccuracies accumulating over time lead to big big issues.
8
1
322
Report an Issue
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.