these structural dynamics will depend on whether
countries adopt and enforce the required policies
and on effective international coordination that
does not yet exist.
AI can concentrate power in the
hands of capital owners at the
expense of workers
The development of AI systems has created new
employment opportunities for millions of relatively
low-skill workers in developing countries—from
data labeling for AI training to content moderation. These opportunities share a common feature
that economists recognize as a source of market
failure: A few large companies are the main source
of jobs for many workers in the AI industry, giving these employers extra power over determining
pay and working conditions. This phenomenon
is what economists call a monopsony. Meanwhile,
workers are being m
anaged by algorithms; human
managers are absent, for the most part. This type
of algorithmic management at scale, combined
with the monopsony powers of employers, results
in AI companies paying wages below workers’
additional contribution to total value,47 working
conditions that workers have little ability to negotiate, and a structural difficulty in workers organizing collectively.
The data labeling industry is a clear example. A few
companies, such as Scale AI, Sama, CloudFactory,
and Appen, hire workers from a large global pool
of workers. High global labor supply combined
with concentrated buyer-side demand drives down
wages. A 2023 investigation in Kenya found that
some data labelers earned between $1.32 and $2.00
per hour, barely above Kenya’s minimum wage of
about $1.20 per hour, for psychologically and emotionally challenging work that included reviewing
graphic content.48 In addition to low wages, workers must contend with sudden shutdowns of the
platform, late or withheld payments, restrictions
on workers organizing, and contracts designed to
place legal liability in jurisdictions that favor the
platforms. Fairwork Cloudwork Ratings, which
evaluates platforms on five areas of fair work, found
that none of the 16 platforms reviewed met basic
standards of fair pay, working conditions, contracts,
management, or worker representation.
The same AI systems that require labeled data
to operate also depend on humans to filter out
the most disturbing content. Content moderators and data workers who screen for disturbing
content carry psychological costs that are well
documented. A 2023 lawsuit by Kenyan content
moderators against Meta and Sama found diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
depression, and anxiety among workers exposed
to traumatic content without proper psychological support.49 Much of this work is outsourced to
developing countries,50 where workers typically
lack access to mental health services and other
protections that are necessary for such disturbing
work. This situation poses a difficult labor market
problem: In a competitive market with sufficient
information and bargaining power, workers taking on such risks would receive higher wages and
structured psychological support. The combination of monopsony, a large global labor supply, and
outsourcing through jurisdictions with weak labor
protections has prevented those conditions from
emerging. They persist, at least in part, because AI
companies can shift the offshore locations for this
work across countries at a relatively low cost.
Beyond the firms that are involved in the value chain
of AI, businesses across the economy can potentially
deploy AI to exercise greater control over workers.
Algorithmic management is not inherently worse
than human management; in some respects it can
be fairer because consistent rules applied uniformly
are easier to scrutinize than the discretionary and
sometimes arbitrary decisions of a human supervisor.51 The concern is not the algorithm itself but the
conditions under which it operates: Workers cannot observe how decisions are made, have limited
means to contest those decisions, and often face a
single buyer with little ability to switch employers.
AI’s Political Impact: Reshaping Power Within and Across Countries
213