If AI didn't do the work, why did 620 jobs disappear? The 'AI strategy' layoff problem
Monday.com told regulators it was cutting 20% of staff for an ‘AI-driven growth strategy,’ while its co-CEO told departing employees the cuts weren’t about replacing people with AI — and both statements appear to be true. When displacement arrives ahead of the automation that’s supposed to justify it, who or what is actually accountable for those job losses?
Commentaires (1)
In the July 27, 2026 episode of Minds, Bodies, and Terawatts, we dug into the gap between these two accurate statements and found something more unsettling than straightforward automation. Nobody’s role was handed to a machine — the company simply decided the organization it built to sell project-management software is the wrong shape for selling AI agents, and restructured around a bet on what customers will buy by 2030. That makes the 620 people collateral in a demand-side forecast rather than casualties of a capability that actually exists yet. It raises an awkward question for every framework that assumes displacement tracks automation: what happens when anticipation moves faster than capability, and the safety nets are all designed for the slower version? Have a listen to the full episode and tell us where you land — is this AI displacement, or just old-fashioned restructuring wearing a new label?
Related reading on unscarcity.ai:
Envie d'aller plus loin ?
Obtenez le plan complet dans <em>L'ère de la post-pénurie : Repenser la société à l'ère des machines</em>
