👑 The Emperor's New Clothes
Six Theses on the Silence Before the Greatest Transformation of the Working World
Hans Christian Andersen tells of an emperor to whom two swindlers promise a garment that only those worthy of their office could see. The emperor sees nothing but remains silent. His court follows suit, one after another. No one wants to be the first to admit they see nothing. Only a child says aloud what everyone has long known.
What Andersen describes is not a story about deception. It is a story about groups that decided silence is more comfortable than truth. I read this fairy tale as a description of the present. The economic structural breaks that are separating growth from employment have arrived in the analytical debate. What is still missing is the counterpart: an honest societal reckoning with what this transformation means, and the willingness to ask uncomfortable questions before the answers are forced upon us.
Thesis 1: The Silence Is a Decision, Not Ignorance.
There is a widespread assumption that the public debate about the transformation of the working world has not yet reached the necessary depth because the topic is complex, because the facts are incomplete, because the future remains uncertain. All of that is true. It is still not the real explanation.
The real explanation is structural in nature. Companies cutting jobs communicate this in controlled tranches. A thousand positions here, two thousand there, three thousand next quarter. Each announcement on its own appears manageable. It generates no political pressure. After a week, it is no longer in the news. This is not a conspiracy. It is the natural response of organizations to the realization that the whole communicates worse than its parts. The result is nonetheless the same: the sum remains invisible because the parts are perceived individually.
Add to this what the pandemic taught and what has not been taken back since: collective desensitization. A society that has gone through multiple crises in a short time develops a tolerance for bad news. What would once have triggered alarm is today categorized, filed away, scrolled past. This is humanly understandable. It is politically dangerous. And it is the reason why the debate about the transformation of the working world has not yet reached the volume it deserves.
> The sum remains invisible because the parts are perceived individually. This is not coincidence. It is structure.
Thesis 2: Work Is Not Primarily Income. This Is the Blind Spot of the Entire Redistribution Debate.
There is a tendency in economic policy debate to reduce the automation problem to the income question. If transfer mechanisms close the material gap, the essential is solved. This falls fundamentally short.
Social psychologist Marie Jahoda empirically demonstrated as early as the 1930s what is intuitively known but plays hardly any role in policymaking: employment fulfills functions that have nothing to do with salary. Time structure. Social contact beyond the nuclear family. The feeling of being needed. Status. Regular activity. Belonging to a collective purpose. Jahoda called these the latent functions of work. They are latent because they only become visible when they are missing.
Whoever loses these dimensions loses more than an income, even if the income is replaced. This is not a footnote. It is the core of what makes the decoupling of growth and employment so socially explosive. A policy that attempts to solve this through transfer payments without answering the question of status, participation, and self-efficacy will not solve the problem. Income is necessary. It is not sufficient. This distinction is almost never made in the current debate.
> Whoever loses the latent functions of work loses more than an income, even if the income is replaced.
Thesis 3: The Institutions Meant to Protect Are Fighting with Yesterday's Instruments.
There are institutions created for precisely this moment: unions and works councils as shields for workers in times of change. The principle is correct. The problem is structural.
By the time these institutions have truly grasped the depth of the ongoing transformation, which requires time, expertise, and the willingness to engage with agentic AI systems and their concrete impact on job profiles, the reality of the labor market will be different from today. Not because bad people sit there. But because the issue is not yet loud enough to force engagement. And it is not yet loud enough because the impact is not yet broad enough.
This creates a structural timing problem. Collective agreements, works council agreements, qualification offensives: all of this presupposes that the change is nameable and negotiable. Job profiles that change in real time elude the classical negotiation framework. What counts as a job description today may look different in 18 months. Protective instruments designed for stable job profiles grasp at nothing when the job profiles themselves are in flux.
Thesis 4: We Are in the Antechamber of the Actual Debate.
A broad societal debate requires a significance level. More visible cuts. More affected people speaking publicly. More people who know the topic not from the newspaper but from their own environment. Those who today truly engage with what these models can already do and where they will move in 18 months belong to a vanishingly small circle.
The rest experiences AI as a useful tool, not as a structural challenge. This is the normal perception logic of technological change: what does not yet hurt is not registered as a problem. And what is registered as a problem is first interpreted as personal failure, not as a structural phenomenon. The accountant whose tasks an AI system takes over first asks what he did wrong. Not what the system changed.
This means in reverse: we are still in the antechamber of the actual debate. The debate that is needed has not yet begun. Not because the facts are missing, but because the impact has not yet reached the critical mass that generates public pressure. What this means for the shapeability of the transformation is the truly unsettling question.
> The debate that is needed has not yet begun. Not because the facts are missing. But because the pain is not yet broadly enough distributed.
Thesis 5: Those Who Know Are Silent the Loudest.
There is a phenomenon observable if you look closely. Those who develop these technologies and know most precisely what they can do behave differently in their private decisions than in their public communication. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, whose company markets AI as a tool for a better world, has built an extensive estate with underground bunkers in Hawaii. He is not an isolated case. A significant portion of the most prominent tech entrepreneurs have, as Reid Hoffman and others have publicly described, built a kind of personal risk provision for societal disruptions.
One need not dramatize this. But it is a risk assessment by people who are closer to the technology than almost anyone else. And this assessment, as various investigations have shown, revolves less around technological than social risks. What happens to societies when large parts of the population lose their economic participation and their status? At the same time, the same people publicly communicate that AI creates jobs, increases productivity, and raises prosperity for all. Both can be true. But it is remarkable how large the gap is between private risk assessment and public messaging.
This is the emperor's court. Not malicious. But silent.
Thesis 6: The Window Opens Before the Crisis. After That, Transformations Are Only Managed.
Transformations can be shaped in a window that opens before the crisis. After that, they are managed. The difference is fundamental. Whoever shapes determines the direction. Whoever manages reacts to damage. Most great societal course corrections in history that are considered successes were made by people who understood earlier than the majority what was coming.
The window for a shaping response to the decoupling of growth and employment is open. How long cannot be precisely said. What can be said: it does not close with a political election or a corporate announcement. It closes when the change has progressed so far that the baseline to which an improvement could refer no longer exists. When job profiles were not restructured but replaced. When qualifications were not adapted but became obsolete.
The question is therefore not whether change is coming. The question is who leads the debate about it: before the crisis or after. As a shaper or as someone affected. Societies that ask this question early have better chances of navigating the transformation in a way that strengthens rather than divides. This requires someone to ask it. Loud enough that the court can no longer remain silent.
> The window opens before the crisis. After that, transformations are no longer shaped. They are managed.
Andersen's fairy tale does not end with the emperor recognizing he wears nothing. It ends with the child saying what everyone has long known, and with a court that briefly pauses before the procession continues. The child takes a risk. It speaks nonetheless. Exactly this decision is at hand. Not for everyone. But for those who see it, who understand it, and who have the position to make something of it.
Sources
1. Jahoda, M.: Employment and Unemployment. Cambridge University Press, 1982.
2. Jahoda, M. / Lazarsfeld, P. / Zeisel, H.: Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Leipzig, 1933.
3. Paul, K. et al.: Latent Deprivation Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023. DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1017358
4. McKinsey Global Institute: Agents, Robots and Us. November 2025.
5. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN2024/001. January 2024.
6. Osnos, E.: Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich. The New Yorker, January 2017.
7. Amodei, D.: The Adolescence of Technology. January 2026.
8. Anthropic Research (Massenkoff & McCrory): Labor Market Impacts. March 2026.
9. Dallas Fed: White-Collar Displacement Study. February 2026.
10. Wilkinson, R. / Pickett, K.: The Spirit Level. Penguin, 2009.
11. Case, A. / Deaton, A.: Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton University Press, 2020.
12. Title: Thanks for the inspiration to Martin Z.