When technology advances, who benefits?

By Joseph L. Ladrido

In 2000 or 2001, while studying at the Arthur D. Little School of Management, I asked a question in a business class that I recall was taught by Professor Daniel Deneffe. At the time, investors were pouring enormous amounts of money into internet companies. Their stock prices were soaring, and everyone seemed excited about the possibilities of the new economy.

My question was simple: If so much money was going into technology companies, what would happen to businesses producing the goods and services people still needed?

I cannot remember the professor’s answer. But I remember the question because, around that time, the dot-com bubble was bursting. Many investors lost fortunes, and numerous internet companies disappeared. The internet itself survived and eventually transformed the world, demonstrating that a revolutionary technology does not guarantee that every investment in it will succeed.

Twenty-five years later, we are confronting a similar question with artificial intelligence, or AI. Only now, the implications could be far greater. AI can already prepare reports, analyze information, write computer programs and perform tasks that once required considerable human effort. Businesses are investing enormous sums in developing these capabilities, hoping to transform industries and generate extraordinary profits.

But what happens to people whose work these machines can increasingly perform?

Consider an office employee in Iloilo City whose job involves preparing routine reports. AI may eventually complete much of that work in minutes. Meanwhile, an electrician repairing a complicated wiring problem, a mechanic fixing farm equipment or a technician maintaining a water system must still deal with physical conditions that machines cannot easily manage.

This creates an interesting possibility. Some jobs requiring practical skills and physical work may become more valuable as traditional office tasks become easier to automate. That does not mean every manual worker will earn more. Technology will continue to improve, including robotics, and wages will still depend on skills, demand and bargaining power. Nevertheless, the traditional assumption that an office job necessarily offers better prospects than skilled physical work deserves reconsideration.

For the Philippines, this is particularly important. A 2026 International Labour Organization study estimated that more than one-quarter of Philippine jobs had some exposure to generative AI.[1] This does not mean those jobs will disappear, but many could change substantially. How quickly our workers, schools and businesses can adjust will matter enormously.

There is another side to this technological revolution that receives less attention. No matter how advanced technology becomes, people must still eat, live somewhere, maintain their health and experience the world around them. Technology can transform how these needs are met, but the physical requirements remain.

Consider a rice farmer in Iloilo. AI might help predict rainfall, identify crop diseases or recommend better planting schedules. But someone must still cultivate the land, manage the water and harvest the crop. A fishing community in Capiz might benefit from better weather forecasts and market information, yet fishers still need boats, equipment, landing facilities and reliable cold storage.

A mango producer in Guimaras may use technology to reach more customers, but growing quality fruit still requires land, water, agricultural knowledge and physical effort. These examples remind us that technological progress cannot replace the physical foundations of economic life. It can, however, make these activities considerably more productive.

Tourism presents another interesting example. AI can prepare travel itineraries, translate languages and arrange hotel reservations. But it cannot replace the experience of visiting Boracay, enjoying the landscapes of Guimaras or discovering Iloilo’s food and cultural traditions. People travel because they want experiences, and the places they visit and people they meet are part of what makes those experiences valuable.

Agriculture, fisheries and tourism will certainly change with technology. Their continued importance, however, does not automatically mean better incomes for farmers, fishers or tourism workers. That will depend on productivity, investment, access to markets and how the benefits are shared.

This brings us back to my question from 2001. When investors become fascinated with a new technology, where does the money go? Are we also investing enough in agriculture, food processing, water supply, housing, transportation and other activities that directly improve people’s lives?

Technology companies create genuine economic value. Their innovations can make traditional industries more efficient and competitive. But financial markets sometimes become so enthusiastic about a new opportunity that expectations exceed what businesses can realistically deliver. The International Monetary Fund raised this concern in its October 2026 financial stability report, warning of a possible correction if returns on AI investments disappoint investors.[2]

There is also the question of who benefits from technological progress. Imagine a company that uses AI to double its output while employing fewer people. Its owners may earn greater profits, and customers may enjoy lower prices. But what happens to workers who lose their jobs, particularly if similar changes occur across many industries?

More wealth could accumulate among those who own the technology, while many households struggle to maintain their incomes. And if people have less money to spend, businesses could eventually face a problem of their own: insufficient customers for the goods and services they can now produce more efficiently.

This outcome is not inevitable. Technology can create new industries, employment opportunities and cheaper products. But the benefits will depend heavily on how societies manage the changes and how widely the resulting prosperity is shared.

Decades ago, Alvin Toffler warned in Future Shock that technological change could advance faster than people and institutions could adapt. His later books, The Third Wave and Powershift, explored how technology transforms economic life and shifts power within society. We may be entering another period of precisely that kind of transformation.

For Western Visayas, the challenge is practical. We should embrace technologies that improve productivity while continuing to invest in the foundations of our regional economy: productive farms, modern fisheries, reliable infrastructure, competitive local businesses and tourism that generates better livelihoods. Our schools must also prepare young people for a world in which practical skills, technological knowledge and sound judgment will all matter.

The question I asked more than two decades ago remains relevant. Technological progress creates enormous opportunities, but we must continue asking where investment goes, who benefits and what happens to those whose livelihoods are disrupted.

Ultimately, economic progress should be measured by more than rising stock prices, impressive technologies or growing corporate profits. It should be measured by whether families can afford food, workers can earn decent incomes, businesses can thrive and communities can enjoy better lives.

That is what technological progress should help us achieve.

Endnotes

[1] International Labour Organization. Generative AI and Jobs in the Philippines: Labour Market Exposure and Policy Implications, February 2026.

[2] International Monetary Fund. Global Financial Stability Report: Resilience, Risk, and Transformation, October 2026.