In May 2026, when the Costa Rican government authorized Align Technology to reduce the minimum number of workers it had to keep under the Free Trade Zone Regime from 4,992 to 2,500, the decision sparked mixed reactions and opened a debate about its implications.
Some people questioned the social impact of the measure and the future of those who would lose their jobs. Others pointed out that many of the affected positions involved repetitive, highly standardized tasks, making automation an expected and even positive evolution. The company itself argued that the adoption of artificial intelligence and automation increased productivity and reduced the need to replace lower-skilled positions.
These arguments are not trivial. Occupational health specialists warn of the risks associated with repetitive tasks, including musculoskeletal injuries, eye strain, and cumulative physical wear. A recent report from the International Labour Organization (ILO) notes that artificial intelligence, automation, and digitalization can help reduce hazardous exposures and prevent workplace injuries, although they also create new social and labor challenges.
However, the discussion doesn’t end there. Recognizing the potential benefits of automation does not resolve a question that often gets pushed to the background. What happens to people when those tasks are no longer performed by human workers? Every job carries some level of risk, whether physical, psychological, or tied to the conditions in which it is performed. Automation may reduce certain occupational risks, but that doesn’t mean it eliminates the underlying problem if, instead, it exposes people to another, potentially greater risk: unemployment.
Productivity, Automation, and Employment
What happened at Align is not an isolated case. Companies around the world have announced layoffs while increasing their investments in artificial intelligence. Meta, for example, announced thousands of layoffs while simultaneously accelerating multibillion-dollar investments in infrastructure and AI development.
The narrative seems to repeat itself: greater efficiency, more agile processes, and better results. What rarely takes center stage in the discussion is how the benefits and costs of that transformation are distributed.
There is no doubt that technological innovation generates value, but it is not always clear how that value is redistributed among those who take part in the production process. If an organization manages to produce more with fewer people, but that productivity gain does not translate into better working conditions, shorter working hours, or greater opportunities for those who are displaced, it is fair to ask who truly benefits from these advances.
Solving One Risk, Creating Another
Concern over the labor impact of artificial intelligence does not come solely from unions or economists. In his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV warns that technological transformations must also be evaluated through the lens of human dignity, justice, and the value of work, not solely through criteria of economic efficiency. The document argues that technological progress cannot be separated from its social consequences, particularly when it affects employment or deepens new forms of exclusion.
This reflection is relevant at a moment when much of the debate around artificial intelligence focuses on productivity gains, cost reduction, and process optimization. Artificial intelligence can generate real benefits, but these should not be analyzed while ignoring their consequences for the people whose source of employment is transformed or eliminated.
Solving an occupational risk should not mean ignoring the social risk that arises when hundreds of people lose their source of income. Replacing exposure to a potential injury with exposure to unemployment does not eliminate the problem — it simply transforms it. And although the two risks are different, neither should be analyzed in isolation.
What’s at Stake
The Align case opens a discussion that will likely become increasingly common in the years ahead.
The question is not whether we should use artificial intelligence. The question is whether we are using artificial intelligence as a tool to enhance human work, or as a mechanism to replace it without fully accepting the consequences of that decision.
Because when efficiency becomes the only measure of success, we risk forgetting that behind every productivity indicator are people whose lives are also part of the equation.