The Quiet Erosion: How VE Economics is Reshaping the Future of Work
The emergence of Virtual Employees (VEs)—autonomous AI-driven agents capable of scaling business operations at unprecedented speed—has stirred a visionary narrative of “limitless abundance.” This perspective imagines VEs ushering in a new era of productivity gains, skyrocketing efficiency, and the creation of roles that liberate workers from routine tasks. Historically, transformative technologies have often broadened social mobility and enhanced overall economic well-being, turning once-scarce opportunities into steppingstones toward higher-status work.
Yet, even as many celebrate these possibilities, a subtler, more ominous trend may be taking shape. Rather than simply displacing entire swaths of labor at once, VEs threaten to quietly erode the entry-level and mid-tier positions that have traditionally served as foundational on-ramps to career advancement and professional status. The commoditization of cognitive tasks—a hallmark of the new VE Economics—does not necessarily open new pathways to social and economic progress. Instead, it risks hollowing out the workforce, leaving fewer opportunities for individuals to build skills organically and ascend the career ladder.
This tension between promised abundance and quiet erosion prompts a stark question: if the very steppingstones that once led workers upward are removed, what replaces them? To understand the implications, we must look closely at how past technological transformations nurtured social mobility—and why this one, centered on commoditized cognition, may not.
Table of contents
Historical Onramps and Social Mobility
Throughout history, technological revolutions have prompted rearrangements of the labor market. When mechanization displaced artisanal production, factory work—though often grueling—offered a new economic structure in which workers could incrementally improve their skills, climb internal hierarchies, and achieve a measure of security and respect. Later, the Information Age’s spread of computing tools allowed clerical and administrative tasks to shift from physical to cognitive domains. This shift often translated into new intermediate roles—data entry clerks, IT support staff, junior analysts—through which workers could gain expertise, signaling capability and ambition, and eventually move into higher-responsibility positions.
In each of these epochs, even the “lowest” rungs of the professional ladder proved crucial. They taught foundational skills, provided mentorship and networking opportunities, and served as indispensable springboards to more advanced roles. Over time, these onramps helped reinforce a social contract: those willing to learn and adapt could find a place in the changing economy, building from a starting point that offered at least the prospect of upward mobility.
This time, however, the commoditization of cognition threatens to break this cycle. With VEs taking over not just repetitive tasks but also a growing range of semi-skilled cognitive functions, many roles traditionally used as steppingstones are at risk. Without accessible entry points, how will new entrants gain the competencies and experience needed to advance? If the cognitive “apprenticeships” that once shaped future specialists and leaders are increasingly handled by machines, the upward path for human workers may become narrower and steeper, undermining the idea that each technological revolution naturally ushers in broader social mobility.
A Quiet Erosion of Opportunity
At first glance, the widespread deployment of VEs appears to promise a frictionless world of business operations, where tasks are seamlessly completed and processes run twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. This narrative aligns with an optimistic reading of history, in which every wave of innovation eventually creates more jobs than it displaces. But beneath the surface lies a quieter, subtler reality.
Rather than a sudden jobs apocalypse, the shift toward VEs is more like a slow fade. Instead of mass layoffs, we may see a gradual reduction in entry-level analyst positions, junior sales support roles, or basic coding jobs. Over time, these underpinnings of the workforce—once essential for skill development and career progression—could vanish. Employers may be thrilled by the efficiency, yet the long-term economic fabric that once wove individuals into higher-status professions will begin to fray.
This erosion is not merely about wages and employment statistics; it’s about the capacity for individuals to prove themselves, to learn by doing, and to accumulate tacit knowledge. Historically, those entering the workforce at a junior level gained mentorship from peers and managers, absorbed company culture, and built a portfolio of accomplishments, ultimately qualifying them for promotions. Without these developmental spaces, career ladders transform into static hierarchies, accessible to only a lucky few who either have the right credentials from the outset or possess uniquely valuable skills that cannot (yet) be replicated by an AI agent.
Startup Realities and Economic Stratification
For startups—traditionally heralded as engines of opportunity—the allure of VEs is even more potent. Early-stage companies, pressed for time and resources, can offload a large share of their day-to-day operations to autonomous agents, keeping human headcount lean. This approach may speed up product development, reduce overhead, and please investors. Yet, for aspiring professionals looking to break into these industries, the picture is less rosy.
Without classic junior roles, new entrants may find themselves blocked from gaining footholds in fast-growing sectors. Instead of a bustling marketplace of innovative startups needing eager interns, support analysts, or junior developers, we get lean teams of founders supported by a silent AI workforce. This can create a two-tier economy: a small, elite group of human innovators and strategists sits atop a platform of commoditized digital labor, while a broad swath of the population struggles to find the first rung on the professional ladder.
In the absence of those lower-tier roles, the old pipeline—start in an entry-level job, learn essential skills, get promoted—may no longer function. As a result, economic mobility could stall. We risk entrenching a professional class that inherits opportunities, network connections, and educational privileges, while newcomers face daunting barriers. Over time, this dynamic erodes the idea of meritocratic advancement, creating a workforce that is top-heavy and inward facing.
Long-Term Consequences: A Hollowed-Out Labor Market
The long-term implications of this hollowing out are profound. By losing the middle of the workforce—the wide range of intermediate skill levels and responsibilities—organizations could become more brittle and less resilient. Without a steady pipeline of emerging talent gaining experience incrementally, who will step into senior roles as current leaders retire? How will companies nurture institutional knowledge if it’s never allowed to accrue gradually across a spectrum of human workers?
Moreover, removing the human element from foundational positions risks diminishing key intangible qualities—empathy, contextual understanding, and the ability to handle ambiguity gracefully. VEs, by design, execute programmed or learned procedures optimally, but they lack the creativity and adaptability that arises from diverse human experience. In a world absent of entry-level jobs, we lose the serendipitous insights and problem-solving approaches that often emerge in the messy process of learning on the job.
Most importantly, this scenario is not just a corporate inconvenience. It has deep social ramifications. Without accessible pathways to develop expertise, expand skill sets, and gain influence, entire segments of the population could find themselves locked out of economic participation and upward mobility. The hollowing out of the workforce risks deepening inequality, undermining trust in institutions, and weakening the social cohesion that comes from widespread access to meaningful work.
Rethinking the Future of Work: A Call for Equitable Design
The commoditization of cognition and the rise of Virtual Employees need not automatically doom the workforce to this fate. The question is whether businesses, policymakers, educators, and communities can recognize this danger early and act decisively to reshape the trajectory.
Addressing this challenge requires more than merely acknowledging the risk. It calls for intentional design of the future workplace, where AI is not just a tool for efficiency but a complementary force that broadens, rather than narrows, opportunities. Employers might commit to “hybrid” workforce models that preserve entry-level roles while layering in VEs to enhance productivity. Educational systems could evolve to equip workers with skills that transcend rote cognitive tasks, emphasizing emotional intelligence, creativity, and interdisciplinary thinking—areas where humans can still add distinct value.
Policymakers and industry leaders may need to consider new frameworks—like job-sharing, apprenticeship models, or incentives for companies that maintain robust internal career ladders. At the same time, unions, professional associations, and community groups could advocate for preserving developmental roles, ensuring that the workforce remains layered and textured, rather than flattened and stratified.
A More Nuanced Vision of Abundance
The rise of VEs and the economic models they represent have the potential to usher in unprecedented growth. But growth alone is not the measure of a healthy economy. A truly abundant future demands that we think holistically, ensuring that new technologies reinforce rather than dismantle the social systems that have long enabled upward mobility.
Yes, VEs can deliver remarkable gains in productivity and profitability. Yet, if we allow their ascendance to hollow out the workforce, we surrender the long-term stability and vitality of our labor markets. Instead of simply accepting the commoditization of cognition as inevitable, we must proactively shape how it integrates into the fabric of work.
By recognizing these risks and acting to maintain the pathways that lead workers from novice to expert, we can foster an environment in which technology’s benefits are more broadly shared. The result would be not a quiet erosion, but a robust evolution—one where abundance is measured not only in output but also in human potential, skill development, and the promise of meaningful upward mobility for all.
