Today’s column is based around a question that was posed following my last piece on Artificial Intelligence: What will happen when AI replaces all the jobs? Before we can talk about fiscal policy — we have to be honest about where work falls in the landscape of life. And there’s a fundamental misunderstanding baked into the way we talk about AI and the future of work.
It’s the idea that if work disappears, purpose does as well. It sounds intuitive but rests on a narrow view of how people actually experience work. The data shows people split into two camps.
Those who love what they do — who draw identity, satisfaction, even meaning from their careers. For them, the idea of a world with less work raises a real concern: What replaces that structure?
Then there’s everyone else.
For this much larger group, work is transactional. It’s how they support their families, pay their bills, and access the parts of life that actually matter. The job is not the purpose. It’s the mechanism that makes purpose possible elsewhere.
The data backs that up in a way the broader conversation often ignores.
In a widely cited survey on meaning in American life, about 7 in 10 people said family gives their life meaning. Only about one-third said the same about their career. Even more telling: Over 80% said time with family provides a great deal or quite a bit of fulfillment, while far fewer said that about work.
That’s not a marginal difference.
Right now, millions of Americans are working more than one job. If purpose were tied directly to work, those workers should be the most fulfilled among us.
They are not.
What multiple jobs actually produce is constraint. Less time. Less flexibility. Less ability to engage with the things people consistently say matter most. Time-use data shows that people with multiple jobs are far more likely to be working weekends, which means even less access to family time, community involvement, or anything resembling balance.
In other words, more work doesn’t multiply purpose. It crowds it out.
You can see the tradeoff most clearly in what people say they wish they could do.
Talk to anyone embedded in a local community—especially in smaller towns—and you’ll hear the same thing. People want to volunteer. They want to coach. They want to give back and show up for their neighbors. But they don’t have the time.
I was reminded of that in a recent conversation with someone who wanted to join his local volunteer fire department. He knew others who felt the same way. The barrier wasn’t interest or commitment. It was time. Time already consumed by work and family obligations.
So what actually creates more purpose: A second or third job taken out of necessity, or the ability to contribute to something larger in your own community?
That’s not a theoretical question. It’s a practical one — and it cuts directly against the idea that work is the primary engine of meaning in people’s lives.
Even broader workplace data points in the same direction. Nearly half of workers say they are working primarily for a paycheck and benefits. Employee engagement has been trending down, not up. That doesn’t mean people hate their jobs. It means they understand what those jobs are for.
We should take them at their word.
None of this dismisses the people who do find deep meaning in their work. That experience is real. It matters. Heck, I even consider myself among that crowd. But it isn’t universal, and it isn’t evenly distributed. Higher-income, higher-education workers are far more likely to describe their jobs as meaningful. That perspective tends to dominate the public conversation, especially around technology and policy.
But it’s not representative of how most people live.
That’s where the AI debate goes off course. It treats the loss of work as a loss of purpose, when for many people it would more accurately be a shift in where purpose is found — and how accessible it becomes.
If anything, the real risk isn’t that people will become purposeless without work. It’s that we continue structuring society in a way that denies them the time and flexibility to pursue the things that already give their lives meaning.
Artificial intelligence is going to force a reckoning with how much labor we actually need. When it does, the more important question won’t be how we preserve work at all costs.
It will be whether we’re willing to rethink what purpose actually looks like for most people — and build around that reality accordingly.
Thanks for reading In Focus! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
