Jamie Dimon Envisions a Four-Day Workweek: but who will benefit from AI advancements?

In 2023, Chase CEO Jamie Dimon received total compensation of $36 million. This package included a base salary of $1.5 million and $34.5 million in variable performance-based incentives. As one of the largest figures in the financial industry, many look to Dimon as a guiding figure, and now he is putting his weight behind a new approach to work.

Dimon believes that as artificial intelligence improves, humans may only need to work four days a week, as AI could complete up to 70 percent of the work currently done by people. However, unlike many advocates of a shorter workweek who believe productivity gains should allow workers to labor fewer hours for the same pay, Dimon holds a different perspective. These ideas were articulated by Dimon in an interview with Bloomberg, where he also stated that the same salaries would not be offered for shorter contracts and that some jobs would not benefit from a reduced workweek.

The Need to Share in the Benefits of AI

During the interview, Dimon pointed out that “technology has been changing society for hundreds of years.” Consider the steam engine, the agricultural revolution, robotics, and the internet—they have all transformed the way humans work. Dimon strikes a surprisingly optimistic tone, acknowledging that “sometimes” technology does “take away jobs,” but he suggests that society should focus on the “big picture.” However, when illustrating this picture, he bases his optimism on falsehoods and irrelevant data. Dimon discusses how technology has allowed GDP and productivity to rise.

While for Wall Street, news of increased GDP and record-high stock prices may be cause for celebration, the average American worker has seen a decrease in pay over the last fifty years. Increases in economic size and productivity mean little to workers if they do not share in the benefits.

Dimon also spoke about improved health outcomes and longer lifespans. However, the wealthiest women in the United States live 10 years longer on average than the poorest, and for men, the gap is even more staggering—wealth adds 15 years to the top 1% average lifespan compared to the bottom 1%. Even when moving to the median, the average person lives around five years less than the super-rich. While no one can deny that modern medical advancements, such as antibiotics, have extended lives worldwide, what is critical in the context of the U.S. is that those advancements must be accessible at an affordable price.

A Gallup poll conducted recently found that last year, a record breaking 38 percent of respondents said that they had skipped a medical appointment or procedure because of the cost. While advancements in cancer research can give people a much higher chance of survival, patients must receive timely treatment for these advancements to make a difference. The same is true for heart disease. High healthcare costs can lead to worse financial and health outcomes. For instance, delaying a doctor’s visit until after a heart attack may result in more expensive treatments, such as surgeries or hospital stays. If a person must exit the workforce to recover, they might not qualify for disability benefits, further shrinking their income.

It is not to say that Dimon’s positive outlook is entirely wrong, but for the vast majority of people to share in the benefits of technological advancements, those benefits must be distributed equitably—a principle that has rarely been upheld when controlled by capital. Data from the Federal Reserve shows that since 1979, laborforce productive has increased over 330 percent, and real wages only remain around 10 percent higher than they were over four decades ago.

Job Displacement and Retraining

When asked which jobs are likely to be eliminated, Dimon admitted he is unsure. For those affected, he sees retraining and re-education as mechanisms to reintegrate displaced workers into the labor market. In a competitive labor market where unemployment rises rapidly and job opportunities are limited, many workers may be forced to accept whatever positions they can find.

AI will undoubtedly increase productivity, and Dimon does not dispute those gains may come at the expense of jobs—just as other technological advacements have. The fate of those whose roles are eliminated and the quality of the jobs available to them remain entirely uncertain. There is no guarantee that the new jobs will match or exceed the eliminated roles in terms of pay, benefits, or working conditions.

Furthermore, considering longer lifespans raises critical questions: Who is living longer? Poverty and economic despair cut years from people’s lives. Will the nation’s poorest residents reach 100? If they do, how many decades will they spend laboring to retire with dignity? While Dimon envisions a society transformed by AI, achieving equitable outcomes requires more than optimism; it demands systemic changes to ensure that the benefits of technological advancements are shared broadly and fairly.