AI took our jobs, but our mortgage didn’t disappear

There is something almost wonderfully unreasonable about Bobby McFerrin’s 1988 hit “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”. It offers one of life’s simplest remedies: when things go wrong, don’t worry, be happy.

It made me think about the average Malaysian man in his late forties today. He definitely has a lot to worry about.

He has a wife, two children, a mortgage, two cars and the usual collection of monthly commitments accumulated over 20 years of doing what responsible adults are supposed to do.

He worked hard. Built a career. Paid his taxes. Took loans the bank decided he could afford.

Then his company restructured.

Some roles were consolidated as technology could do more. Fewer people were needed and he was one of those who lost his job.

Even then, he was told not to worry, just reskill.

Except the mortgage is still due.

So is the car loan. The credit card bills. School expenses. Insurance. Groceries.

And somewhere in a bank’s call centre, an automated system notices that a payment has been missed.

The phone rings on a Monday morning.

The banker calling may be perfectly polite and the man may even explain that after 20 years of paying on time, he has suddenly lost his income.

But the script from the banker remains the same.

All they are interested in is when will he be making payment?

And I couldn’t help wondering: when governments around the world jumped onto the AI bandwagon, did all the other systems jump with them?

Malaysia is certainly thinking about the employment consequences of AI. AI Malaysia Bhd, the national AI office, has been tasked with studying its impact on jobs and recommending ways to protect workers.

TalentCorp’s workforce study estimates that hundreds of thousands of employees across several major sectors could be severely affected by AI, digitalisation and green-economy changes over the coming years.

We are talking about reskilling. Upskilling. AI literacy. Future-ready workers.

All are truly necessary.

But what happens between losing yesterday’s job and becoming tomorrow’s future-ready worker?

Malaysia already has an employment insurance system providing temporary income replacement and re-employment assistance to eligible workers who lose their jobs.

But maybe the next stage of AI policy needs to go further, because when someone loses a job, life doesn’t stop to accommodate the setback.

He simultaneously exists inside our banking, housing, healthcare, education, taxation and social-protection systems.

If technological displacement becomes significant, public policy cannot afford to operate in silos. What happens in technology will eventually have an impact on human resource, finance, housing, healthcare and social protection.

Could verified displaced workers receive structured temporary repayment flexibility while retraining or seeking employment?

Could employment assistance automatically connect people to financial counselling before they default?

Could mental health support become part of displacement programmes rather than something we offer only after someone begins to fall apart?

This isn’t unprecedented thinking.

In July, Malaysian banks offered borrowers affected by global supply disruptions and the West Asia conflict assistance that included temporary payment deferments, reduced instalments and longer loan tenures.

We seem to be able to understand that extraordinary external events can temporarily change a person’s ability to pay loans. We knew this during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Why wouldn’t technological disruption deserve similar thinking as armed conflicts and viruses?

AI may create new jobs. It may improve productivity and build industries we cannot yet imagine. Progress itself isn’t the enemy.

But transitions have human beings very much alive inside them.

Perhaps “don’t worry, be happy” works beautifully as a motivational upbeat song lyric.

It is significantly less useful as economic policy.

But I wonder, when did resilience become the individual’s responsibility alone?

Lose your job? Reskill.

Struggling emotionally? Be resilient.

Can’t find equivalent work? Reinvent yourself.

Can’t meet your mortgage? Errr … lelong?

I am an advocate of resiliency but it is not the answer to every structural disruption.

Psychology can help a person adapt to job loss, but it cannot renegotiate their mortgage, redesign unemployment protection or coordinate ministries.

And if we already know change is coming, our responsibility should extend beyond simply teaching the man how to survive the new economy.

It should also be making sure he doesn’t lose his house while learning how.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.