Will AI Take Jobs or Enhance Human Value?

Reading PwC's "AI Jobs Barometer" from a Japanese Perspective

AI Taking Jobs—this phrase has been repeated numerous times since generative AI became widespread. However, PwC's "2026 Global AI Jobs Barometer" indicates a more complex reality, which is particularly significant for Japanese companies. AI is not simply eliminating jobs. It is reshaping job content, widening productivity gaps between companies, and raising the skill requirements for young workers at an early stage.

According to the report highlighted by Bermuda's news site Bernews, PwC analyzed over a billion job advertisements across six continents to examine how AI affects hiring, wages, skills, and productivity. The findings reveal that the situation is not as simple as "jobs exposed to AI are at risk." Instead, companies that effectively utilize AI are paradoxically increasing their workforce, raising wages, and leading in productivity.

PwC's research shows that companies with high exposure to AI experience greater productivity growth compared to those with low AI exposure, with significant growth observed particularly among top-tier companies. Bernews' article also notes that the group of companies most exposed to AI recorded a 34% productivity growth by 2025 compared to 2018, surpassing the 24% growth of companies less able to leverage AI. Furthermore, the top 20% of companies with high AI exposure achieved an average labor productivity growth of 163%.

The key point here is that AI is not solely being used as a "tool for workforce reduction." PwC's official page explains that companies achieving productivity gains through AI are also leading in wage and workforce growth. This creates a divide between companies that reduce staff with AI and those that expand human capabilities and business with AI.

When Japanese companies interpret these results, the primary consideration should not be "how many people can be cut with AI," but rather "how much can existing employees transition to higher-value work with AI."

AI Splits the Labor Market in Two

One of the concepts emphasized by PwC is the "polarizing labor market." The report suggests that AI significantly divides jobs into two directions.

One direction involves AI taking over routine tasks, requiring humans to engage in jobs demanding higher judgment, expertise, and leadership. PwC categorizes these as jobs "professionalized" by AI. The other direction involves AI simplifying tasks, making jobs that traditionally required specialized knowledge more accessible to non-specialists, which can be described as AI-driven "democratization."

At first glance, democratization seems beneficial. If anyone can perform advanced tasks, productivity should increase. However, from the perspective of labor market value, the situation is not straightforward. Jobs that anyone can do tend to lose wage premiums. Conversely, jobs that can enhance expertise through AI hold higher value.

According to PwC's official page, jobs professionalized by AI grow faster and have higher wage growth compared to democratized jobs. In the AI era, those who are strong are not "people who cannot be replaced by AI," but rather "people who can amplify their expertise using AI."

This has significant implications for Japanese employees. For example, in fields like accounting, legal, HR, marketing, finance, media, consulting, and engineering, AI will handle tasks such as document preparation, research, summarization, and initial analysis. However, these alone do not yield results. Ultimately, what is needed is the ability to ask questions, challenge assumptions, read customer and market contexts, assess risks, and persuade decision-makers.

In the AI era, the value increases not for those who are merely "fast workers," but for those who can make better judgments using AI-generated answers.

On Social Media, the Reaction Stands Out: "AI is Not About Reducing People"

In response to the PwC report, reactions about AI and employment have been prominent on LinkedIn and X. Publicly searchable posts reveal three notable perspectives.

First, there is the perception that "AI is redesigning jobs rather than taking them." On LinkedIn, attention is drawn to the fact that companies advancing AI adoption are seeing growth in wages and workforce, with opinions suggesting that AI's greatest opportunity lies not in replacing humans but in reinventing jobs themselves. This aligns with PwC's message that companies using AI for growth are thriving.

Second, there is a reaction that "the value of human skills is increasing." Abilities such as judgment, creativity, leadership, empathy, and communication, traditionally referred to as "soft skills" and often treated ambiguously compared to technical skills, are now seen as directly linked to rewards and promotions in the AI era. As AI absorbs routine tasks, non-routine judgment remains for humans, concentrating value there.

Third, there is concern that "career development for young people is becoming more difficult." On X, posts react to the fact that entry-level jobs exposed to AI are already demanding judgment, creativity, and leadership. On LinkedIn, the question of "how to nurture future leaders" is raised as AI replaces tasks traditionally handled by young employees to gain experience, such as research, document preparation, and routine analysis.

This issue is particularly important for Japanese companies. In the Japanese employment model, the system of nurturing employees over time after mass hiring of new graduates has long been functional. However, if AI absorbs jobs that served as "training grounds" for young employees, they may be required to make higher-level judgments and handle customer interactions before gaining experience. This presents both opportunities and risks.

The Challenge for Japanese Companies: "Implementation" vs. "Achievement"

In Japan, the introduction of generative AI itself is beginning to progress. According to PwC Japan's "Generative AI Survey Spring 2025: A Comparison of Five Countries," the promotion of generative AI utilization in Japanese companies is increasing, with a majority reporting that they are using generative AI internally or providing generative AI services externally.

However, the more important point highlighted by the same survey is that only a limited number of Japanese companies feel they are experiencing effects exceeding expectations, while more companies find the effects falling short of expectations. In other words, the issue for Japanese companies has shifted from "whether they are using AI" to "whether they can achieve results with AI."

This aligns with the on-the-ground sense of many companies. Generative AI is now used for tasks like email creation, meeting summary, translation, research, and drafting documents. However, few companies have yet linked this to business model transformation, customer experience improvement, product development acceleration, operating profit improvement, or optimal personnel placement.

IPA's "DX Trends 2025" also organizes the current state and challenges of Japanese companies' DX from the perspectives of strategy, technology, and human resources. The subtitle highlights the issue of moving from "inward-looking, partial optimization" to "outward-looking, overall optimization." This applies directly to the use of generative AI.

If AI is only used as a convenient tool for each department, its effects are limited. Administration uses it for meeting minutes, HR for job postings, sales for emails, and planning for document creation—each becomes slightly easier. However, the overall competitiveness of the company does not change significantly. The true value of AI emerges when it crosses business boundaries, speeds up decision-making, and changes the value delivered to customers.

In Labor-Short Japan, AI Should Be Considered in the Context of "Expansion" Rather Than "Replacement"

For Japan, the discussion of AI and employment differs slightly from that in the West. Japan faces population decline and labor shortages. The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's Labor Economy White Paper states that amid long-term population decline, sustainable wage increases require a rise in output per person, i.e., labor productivity. Additionally, productivity improvement through the use of robots, AI, ICT, and human resource development is deemed important.

Given this premise, AI introduction in Japan should be considered not "to reduce people" but "to create more value with fewer people." Of course, some routine tasks will decrease. Simple data entry, formal aggregation, standard document creation, and initial inquiry handling will likely be significantly compressed by AI.

However, in labor-short Japan, how to use the time freed up becomes crucial. Will it be used to improve customer service quality? For on-site improvements? For new business ventures? For educating young employees? Or will it simply end with labor cost reduction? The future of the company depends on these choices.

The implication from the PwC report is clear. Companies growing with AI are not merely cutting costs. They are using AI to amplify human capabilities and create new value. Japanese companies should learn from this "expansion" mindset.

For Young Employees, the Disappearance of "Apprenticeship" Becomes the Biggest Issue

In considering employment in the AI era, the often-overlooked aspect is the development of young employees. PwC's official page explains that junior positions exposed to AI are increasingly requiring leadership and strategic thinking traditionally expected of senior personnel. Additionally, entry-level positions exposed to AI are reportedly becoming "seniorized."

For companies, this may seem like an opportunity for immediate workforce readiness. If AI assists with research and document preparation, young employees can quickly challenge more advanced tasks. However, on the flip side, there is a risk that young employees may lose opportunities to learn basic operations.

Traditionally, young employees learned the structure of work by taking meeting minutes, preparing documents, gathering data, and receiving feedback from seniors. Within seemingly inefficient tasks lay opportunities to learn industry knowledge, customer understanding, logical structuring, internal politics, and decision-making criteria. If AI performs these tasks instantly, companies must prepare new educational designs.

For example, instead of merely having young employees submit AI-generated documents, they should be encouraged to consider "why this structure," "which assumptions are shaky," "where might the customer object," and "what verification is needed for the numbers." AI should be used not as an answer vending machine but as a partner for thought training.

In the AI era, new employee education shifts from "teaching tasks" to "enhancing judgment quality." Companies unable to adapt to this risk having young employees who, despite using AI, do not understand the essence of work.

For Individuals, "Specialization Using AI" Is More Important Than AI Skills

From an individual career strategy perspective, simply acquiring AI skills is not enough. Of course, prompt design, AI tool selection, data utilization, and generative AI risk management are important. However, these alone will not differentiate individuals.

What will hold value in the future is the ability to explain "how to use AI in one's field of expertise." In sales, how to improve customer understanding and proposal hypothesis accuracy. In HR, how to enhance decisions in recruitment, development, and placement. In legal, how to balance speed and accuracy in risk reviews. In finance, how to support understanding of customer needs and market changes. In media, how to strengthen information verification and unique perspectives.

In the AI era, the question is not whether one can use AI, but "how one has enhanced the value of their work using AI."

In this sense, the phrase seen on social media, "those who use AI will take the jobs of those who don't," is half correct. However, more accurately, it should be said that "those who can expand their expertise using AI will replace the value of mere workers."

Recommendations for Japanese Companies: Don't Let AI End as a Workforce Reduction Tool

Reading the PwC report from a Japanese perspective suggests three directions companies should take.

First, do not evaluate AI utilization solely for cost reduction. If only the reduced work hours and labor costs are considered, AI becomes a short-term efficiency tool. However, the real turning point is whether the surplus created by AI can be reinvested in new businesses, customer contact, quality improvement, and human resource development.

Second, redesign the development of young employees. If AI replaces apprenticeship tasks, companies must create systems to develop judgment, explanatory skills, and leadership early on. Relying solely on on-the-job training is insufficient. Case exercises using AI, a culture of review, and hypothesis-testing education are needed.

Third, incorporate human skills into evaluation systems. Judgment, creativity, empathy, leadership, and communication have often been ambiguously evaluated. However, in an era where AI handles routine tasks, these abilities create differences in outcomes. If not reflected in evaluations, promotions, rewards, and personnel placement, the necessary talent for the AI era will not develop.

Conclusion: AI Challenges the Human Perspective of Companies

Does AI take jobs? The answer depends on how companies use AI. For companies that see people only as costs, AI becomes a tool for reduction. For companies that view people as agents of value creation, AI becomes a tool for capability expansion.

PwC's research shows that companies in the latter category are advancing in productivity, wages, and hiring. This is both a hope and a warning for Japanese companies.

In Japan, where population decline and labor shortages are progressing, there is no room to stop out of fear of AI. On the other hand, simply introducing AI does not automatically lead to growth. What is needed is the management will to review operations, reorganize human resource development, and transform the time freed by AI into new value.

In the AI era, it is not the companies that have introduced AI that will survive. It is the companies that have enabled human judgment, creativity, responsibility, and leadership to be used more effectively through AI.

Source URL

Bernews "PwC’s Report Highlights AI’s Impact On Jobs." An article introducing the key points of the PwC 2026 AI Jobs Barometer and the impact of AI on hiring, productivity, and human skills.
https://bernews.com/2026/06/pwcs-report-highlights-ais-impact-on-jobs/

PwC Official: 2026 Global AI Jobs Barometer "Two futures for jobs in an AI era." Primary information on the analysis of over a billion job advertisements, productivity, wages, and workforce growth in AI-exposed companies, polarizing labor market, and changes in junior positions.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/ai/ai-jobs-barometer.html

PwC Japan: Generative AI Survey Spring 2025: A Comparison of Five Countries. Reference material on the promotion of generative AI utilization in Japanese companies, challenges in achieving effects, progression of polarization, and structural issues of Japanese companies.
https://www.pwc.com/jp/ja/knowledge/thoughtleadership/generative-ai-survey2025.html

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare: 2024 Edition Analysis of the Labor Economy Part II Chapter 2 "Response to Labor Shortages." Reference material on Japan's population decline, labor shortages, labor productivity improvement, AI and ICT utilization, and the necessity of human resource development.
https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/wp/hakusyo/roudou/24/2-2.html

IPA: DX Trends 2025 "From Inward-Looking, Partial Optimization to Outward-Looking, Overall Optimization." Reference material organizing the current state and challenges of Japanese companies' DX, AI and generative AI utilization, and issues