Layoff at 35? Ankur Warikoo's Blunt Advice: No Complaining, No Excuses

See All Articles

5 Key Takeaways

• Start with small practical basics, like creating a professional email address.
• Stop dwelling on past mistakes; focus on writing a better future from today onward.
• Don't get overwhelmed by the big picture; take one achievable step at a time.
• Build a daily learning habit of 15–30 minutes to gradually close skill gaps.
• Follow two non-negotiable rules: no complaining and no excuses.

---

Ankur Warikoo's Blunt Wake-Up Call to a 35-Year-Old Facing a Layoff: 'No Complaining. No Excuses.'

A story of regret, resilience, and the raw advice that reframes a midlife crisis as a starting line.

A 35-year-old man with no university degree, a history of substance abuse, and an impending layoff recently reached out to entrepreneur and content creator Ankur Warikoo for career advice. His email, filled with regret and uncertainty, painted a picture of someone who felt trapped by over a decade of poor decisions. Warikoo's response, which he later shared on social media platform X, was practical, compassionate, and unflinchingly direct. It was a masterclass in taking responsibility when the ground beneath you is shifting.

The Breaking Point

The man's story was one of repeated academic and personal setbacks. He failed Class 11, changed schools, and then failed Class 12. He eventually completed his schooling through the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), an alternative board that allows students to finish their education outside the traditional system. He then enrolled in a Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) programme, but dropped out after losing focus and descending into alcohol and substance abuse.

During his twenties, he worked in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) and customer service roles. He held down jobs, but by his own admission, discipline was absent from his life. Then, in 2018, a severe anxiety episode triggered by years of alcohol abuse and withdrawal led to hospitalisation and a major health scare. That event marked a turning point. He quit alcohol completely and began rebuilding his personal life. In 2020, he married the woman he loved, someone he credits with helping him survive his darkest moments.

Professionally, things started looking up after years of stagnation. In 2022, he moved internally within his company into a quality and testing role working on speech-to-text systems. Three years later, in 2025, he was promoted into a governance and risk analyst position. But the upward trajectory was about to hit a wall. Due to organisational restructuring, his role was set to end in less than a month unless he could secure another internal position.

The Core Fear

What terrified him most wasn't just the layoff — it was the gnawing belief that he had built his career on luck rather than competence. He had no graduation degree. His technical skills, he felt, were weak. In his email to Warikoo, he described himself as confronting the consequences of "years of poor decisions, procrastination, and a lack of direction." For the first time, he said he wanted to "take full responsibility" for his life. But standing at the crossroads, he didn't know which path to take first.

Warikoo's reply didn't offer magic solutions. Instead, it zeroed in on the mindset shifts that make all other progress possible.

Start with the Basics

Warikoo's first piece of advice was almost comically simple: create a professional email address. The employee had been using an old, informal address created in his teenage years. In a world where first impressions often happen inside an inbox, this small fix was a symbolic first step toward treating a job search with the seriousness it deserves.

But the real work was deeper.

You Can't Rewrite the Past

Warikoo addressed the weight of regret head-on. He told the man he had two options: spend the rest of his life "wallowing in your misery and regret" over the last 15 years, or use the next 30 years to shape a different story. The past is sealed, Warikoo emphasised. What matters is the chapter you write from today onward.

This perspective reframes failure not as a permanent stain but as an event with an expiration date. The employee's history of academic struggles and addiction was real, but it didn't have to dictate his future identity. That separation — between who you were and who you choose to become — is a cornerstone of any meaningful comeback.

The past is sealed. What matters is the chapter you write from today onward.

Don't Look at the Mountain

When the road ahead feels impossible, the instinct is to stand paralysed, staring at the enormity of the climb. Warikoo told the employee to stop looking at the entire mountain. Instead, "take one step at a time."

The immediate step was practical and achievable: get the resume into the best possible shape and begin applying for roles that match his existing experience. Not the dream job. Not the perfect job. Just the next right job. Focusing on the next task — the one within arm's reach — breaks the paralysis. Competence, Warikoo's advice implied, is built through a series of small, completed actions, not through a single grand gesture.

Build a Daily Learning Habit

For someone who felt chronically behind on technical skills, the idea of "catching up" can feel overwhelming. Warikoo suggested a disarmingly manageable commitment: spend 15 to 30 minutes each day learning something new. It could be a free course on YouTube, a chapter of a book, or an interaction inside an online community. The subject didn't even have to be strictly job-related; the goal was to cultivate learning as a habit and to follow genuine curiosity.

Embedding learning into a daily routine does two things. It gradually closes the skills gap without requiring heroic bursts of effort. And it rewires a person's self-image. Someone who learns every day, even for half an hour, stops being a person "without skills" and becomes a person who is constantly acquiring them. Over weeks and months, that shift in identity is transformative.

The Two Non-Negotiable Rules

Warikoo's final counsel was his bluntest. If the employee was genuinely ready to take responsibility for his life, he had to observe two "non-negotiable restrictions": no complaining and no excuses.

Complaining, in this framework, is a form of emotional leakage. It drains energy and keeps the focus on external villains — the bad luck, the unfair system, the missed opportunities. Excuses, meanwhile, are the stories we tell ourselves to avoid discomfort. "I don't have a degree" can be a factual statement or a shield against trying. Warikoo's directive to ban both removes the escape hatches. It forces a person to live in the world as it actually is and to work with the tools actually at hand.

The Two Non-Negotiables

No complaining. Complaining drains energy and focuses attention on external villains — bad luck, unfair systems, missed opportunities. It's emotional leakage that keeps you stuck.

No excuses. Excuses are the stories we tell to avoid discomfort. "I don't have a degree" can be a factual statement — or a shield against trying. Ban both, and you remove every escape hatch.

What Happens Next

The employee's immediate priority remains securing a new role before his current one disappears. But Warikoo's advice was designed for a longer arc. The job search is the sprint; the habit-building, the no-excuses mindset, and the daily learning are the marathon training. Whether the man lands an internal transfer or has to start fresh elsewhere, the framework remains the same: small, consistent actions, a refusal to be defined by the past, and an absolute commitment to personal accountability.

This exchange resonates far beyond one person's inbox. It's a blueprint for anyone who feels underqualified, behind schedule, or haunted by earlier missteps. Career crises at midlife often feel like verdicts. Warikoo's message is that they are actually starting lines — provided you stop looking backward, stop complaining, and start building, 15 minutes at a time.

---

Based on Ankur Warikoo's response shared on X, republished for those navigating career transitions and personal reinvention.

Read more

See All Articles

The Siren Song of AI: Why Markets Can't Stop the Mass Layoff Trap

A few weeks ago, a paper appeared quietly, almost in a whisper, titled The AI Layoff Trap. Its authors, Jerry Tsoukalos and Brett Falk, are not household names. Yet their 60 pages of mathematics unfold a logic so chilling that it makes one wonder if our collective future is already being written in equations none of our policy-makers seem to understand. It is a warning — not of machines becoming sentient, not of Terminator-style robots — but of a mundane, spreadsheet-driven apocalypse. A world where companies, acting entirely rationally, hollow out their own customer base until the economy itself gasps for breath. And the most terrifying insight? They will see it coming and do it anyway.

In Delhi’s corridors of power, where “AI” is now uttered with the same blind enthusiasm once reserved for bullet trains and smart cities, such warnings are treated as academic luxury. The Indian government’s obsession with narratives of technological leapfrogging, of a “New India” powered by algorithms, carefully avoids asking the question that Tsoukalos and Falk place at the center of their analysis: if every employer replaces workers with AI, who is left to buy anything? This is not Luddism. This is arithmetic.

The Monopoly Thought: A Lesson in Restraint

The economists strip their model down to a thought experiment: imagine a single monopoly company producing widgets. Everyone works there, and everyone buys the widgets. Suddenly, AI arrives — capable of doing the work of 90% of the staff. The CEO considers adopting it. The immediate advantage is obvious: costs fall, profits rise. But this CEO is not a fool. She remembers that her own laid-off workers are also her customers. If they lose their income, who will purchase widgets? In the monopoly setting, she balances the equation. She adopts AI only to the extent that it augments workers without mass destruction of demand. She exercises what the paper calls self-restraint.

This is the benign scenario. A single rational actor with a complete view of the system can internalize the social cost. It is the logic that corporate apologists offer whenever they argue that “markets will adjust” and that “new jobs will emerge.” It is also the logic almost entirely absent from how India’s employment debate is conducted. The government’s own labour force surveys, when they were not being suppressed or delayed, told a story of shrinking formal employment, rising informality, and stagnant wages long before AI became a headline. Yet the official response remains a cocktail of denial and grand promises — Skill India, Startup India, Digital India — as if the mere naming of schemes could summon a demand base out of thin air.

The Competitive Trap: When Everyone is Rational, No One is Safe

The paper’s true, dark contribution emerges when the monopoly is replaced by competition. Now there are many widget companies, each employing workers and selling to the total pool of customers. The CEO of one of these firms does the same calculation. She can slash costs by replacing her workers with AI. But when she looks at the demand side, she sees something reassuring: her own workers were only a tiny fraction of the overall market. They never bought exclusively from her company — they spread their money across all competitors. By laying them off, she loses only a sliver of total demand, a negligible amount. The benefit of automation, by contrast, is enormous. The math is ruthless. It tells her to fire.

Now project this reasoning onto every other CEO. Each one, independently, reaches precisely the same conclusion: the individual cost of retaining workers outweighs the minuscule loss in personal sales. They all automate. They all fire. And at the end, the entire workforce — the very people who constituted the market — have no wages. Demand evaporates. Every firm, even those that automated first, finds itself staring at balance sheets soaked in red ink. The invisible hand that was supposed to guide them has instead collectively drawn a noose.

This is the AI layoff trap. It is not a coordination failure born of ignorance. The CEOs are rational. They see the cliff ahead. They know the economics of what they are doing. But as Tsoukalos explains, the trap emerges because each actor’s dominant strategy — the move that benefits them regardless of what others do — is to adopt as much AI as possible. To hold back is to be undercut by competitors who automate, lose market share, and go bankrupt anyway. “No matter what you do, no matter what the other companies are doing, your best strategy is to adopt as much of this technology as possible,” he says. This is the formal structure of a prisoner’s dilemma, the very same game-theoretic mechanism that won a Nobel Prize for showing why rational individuals can produce collectively irrational outcomes.

The Siren Song of Productivity

Tsoukalos invokes Homer’s Odyssey to explain the situation. The sirens sang with such beauty and divine knowledge that sailors, mesmerized, steered their ships onto the rocks. To survive, Odysseus had himself tied to the mast, forcing his crew to ignore his own desperate commands to turn toward the music. That rope, that external restraint, was the only thing that saved them. Today’s sirens are not mythical; they wear the unassuming garb of quarterly earnings calls and stock buyback announcements. They promise unprecedented productivity, cost savings, and competitive edge. The CEOs, like the sailors, cannot resist on their own. They need to be tied to a mast.

But here, the metaphor acquires a tragic twist. In India, the government has positioned itself not as the crew holding the ropes, but as the choir amplifying the song. Ministers speak of artificial intelligence as if it were a monsoon rain that will nourish all fields equally. The narrative is relentlessly upbeat: AI will create jobs, not destroy them; it will unlock human potential; India, with its vast pool of cheap data and engineering talent, will be the “AI garage of the world.” At no point in these celebrations does anyone in power voice concern about who will consume the goods and services produced by these super-efficient, AI-optimized enterprises. The assumption, unspoken and unexamined, is that demand will somehow take care of itself — that a new class of consumers will materialize from the data centers, or that global markets will absorb everything India produces. It is a gamble of cosmic proportions, wagered with the futures of millions who have already been rendered precarious by demonetisation, a poorly designed GST, and a pandemic that the state responded to with contempt for the working poor.

What the Paper Prescribes: Tax the Replacement, Not the Worker

Tsoukalos and Falk test several popular solutions. Universal basic income (UBI), giving workers equity, retraining programs — all are found wanting in their model, because none of them directly alter the incentive to replace a human being with a line of code. The only mechanism that works, they conclude, is to make the act of full replacement costly. They propose a tax on the replacement of workers by AI. Not a tax on augmentation — using AI to enhance a worker’s capacity would be exempt. But a firm that wants to eliminate 90% of its human workforce would face a levy heavy enough to force a genuine calculation of the social cost.

They draw a parallel with carbon taxes: a market-based instrument that internalizes an externality. A company does not pay directly for the harm of every tonne of CO2 emitted, but the tax nudges its behavior toward a societally bearable level. An AI replacement tax would operate similarly. The word “tax” is, as they concede, politically toxic, and so other instruments could achieve similar ends: subsidies for retaining workers, regulatory mandates, sectoral agreements. But the core insight remains — without an external force, without the mast to which the sailors are bound, the competitive dynamic makes collective self-restraint a mathematical impossibility.

One searches Indian policy documents in vain for any such thinking. The Modi government has, instead, presided over a steady weakening of labour laws, rebranding them as “reforms” that supposedly attract investment. A tax designed to disincentivise job destruction would represent a fundamental reversal — a recognition that capital must be made to carry the weight of its own consequences. It is a demand that would likely be met with accusations of being “anti-business” or “anti-innovation.” But the academy, through cold equations, is asking whether a society can afford to let the innovators define the terms of surrender.

A Decade Hence: Inequality as Design

Asked to imagine a United States that fails to avoid the trap, Tsoukalos speaks of a “tremendous amount of wealth inequality, something that we’ve never seen before,” and political instability reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis. Translate that to the Indian context, and the prospect is even grimmer. India enters the AI era with a labour force already segmented by caste, religion, and region, a crumbling public education system, and a state that has perfected the art of manufacturing statistical joy. The periodic labour force survey, when released, is debated less for its numbers than for the gymnastics employed to massage them into a glow of improvement. The real story — that fewer than one in ten workers have regular salaried jobs, that real wages for most have stagnated or fallen, that the quality of employment has deteriorated even when headline unemployment drops — receives minimal official attention.

If AI-driven layoffs accelerate, the first to be excised will be those already on the margins — the contract workers, the gig deliverers, the office assistants, the call-centre employees whose linguistic dexterity was once hailed as India’s competitive advantage. The IT sector, long the poster child of middle-class aspiration, is itself turning toward automation platforms that require a fraction of the human resource. The government’s response, predictably, will be to brand any critic as a pessimist, to unfurl fresh slogans, and to commission more glossy reports about the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But the layoff trap does not care for slogans. It cares only for the circular flow of income, which, once broken, leaves behind a wasteland of defunct consumers and obsolete producers.

The Real-World Test: Can Agreements Hold?

Tsoukalos dismisses any hope that CEOs will voluntarily coordinate to slow down. Imagine, he says, that Anthropic and OpenAI agree to restraint, and Microsoft and Google follow. “As soon as you walk out of that room, your incentive … is to immediately look at the gains you can get from adopting AI, now that you know that no one else will. That’s your opportunity, and that’s your duty to your shareholders.” This is not cynicism; it is a structural condition of a system that compels even the well-intentioned toward disaster. The Indian corporate landscape, dominated by tightly held conglomerates where shareholder value is often indistinguishable from promoter enrichment, is even less likely to produce genuine voluntary restraint. The Reliances, the Tatas, the Adanis — all are racing into AI-led automation, and the government’s own policy apparatus encourages them with ever more liberal terms of operation. There is no rope, no mast, no external force. Only the sirens, singing louder each quarter.

Criticisms

• The Indian government is criticized for celebrating artificial intelligence as an unalloyed good while systematically ignoring the demand-side collapse that mass automation could trigger.
• A deliberate suppression of inconvenient unemployment data is alleged, as statistical agencies are said to have been pressured to paint rosy pictures of job creation.
• The Modi government’s “Digital India” initiative is faulted for functioning as a public-relations veil behind which labour rights are steadily eroded and industries are encouraged to substitute workers with machines without any social cost accounting.
• Economists close to the government are reproached for regurgitating outdated trickle-down narratives that assume technology automatically generates enough new jobs to replace those it destroys, a claim the mathematical models decisively dismantle.
• Mainstream news organizations are indicted for treating every ministerial announcement about AI hubs and centres of excellence as evidence of progress, while refusing to interrogate the structural unemployment already visible.
• Corporate leaders are called to account for extolling automation in pursuit of shareholder returns while disregarding the long-term destruction of the very consumer base their profits depend upon.
• International technology firms operating in India are accused of exporting AI cost-cutting models that have proven socially corrosive in their home countries, with the government offering no regulatory pushback.
• The government’s labour reforms are exposed as having stripped workers of bargaining power precisely at the historical moment when that power is most needed to negotiate the terms of technological transition.

Waiting for the firms to figure it out for themselves is, as Tsoukalos says, the worst possible thing we can do. Yet that is precisely the course charted by those who rule us, mistaking the noise of the sirens for the sound of progress.

This analysis draws on an interview conducted with Jerry Tsoukalos, co-author of the paper “The AI Layoff Trap.” The full conversation is available through the original broadcast transcript.

See All Articles

The French Fine That Rekindled a Firestorm: Infosys, Labour Compliance, and the Shadow of the 70-Hour Workweek

Nearly three years after Infosys founder N.R. Narayana Murthy urged India’s youth to work 70 hours a week, the IT giant has again found itself in the crosshairs of a labour debate. This time, however, the controversy didn’t erupt in a Bangalore boardroom or on social media. It arrived quietly, in the form of a €175,000 fine from French regulators. The reason? A time recording system that fell short of France’s exacting labour laws. The incident has forced a conversation many Indian tech firms would rather avoid: are we compliant not just with the spirit of global work rules, but with the letter of the law?

What Exactly Happened in France?

In a regulatory order that attracted little fanfare in India initially, France’s regional labour authority fined Infosys around ₹2 crore for shortcomings in its employee time recording system. Crucially, the infraction had nothing to do with overworking staff. The French inspectors pointed to gaps in reliability, auditability, and monitoring—particularly for certain unspecified categories of employees. As Business Standard reported, the system simply did not meet the mandated standards for tracking working hours, overtime, and rest periods.

Infosys, for its part, has downplayed the fine’s impact, stating it will not materially affect financials or operations. The company has not disclosed which employee segments were involved or whether it must overhaul its systems. But the damage to its image as a global compliance-first player has already been done.

France’s 35-Hour Fortress

To understand the severity of the fine—modest as the sum might seem for a billion-dollar company—one must look at France’s labour regime. The country’s 35-hour statutory workweek, introduced in 2000, is among Europe’s most protective. Employers must keep “precise, reliable, and auditable” records of every employee’s daily and weekly hours, breaks, and overtime. The law isn’t just about capping work; it’s about making working time transparent and contestable. As French labour code articles L3171-1 to L3171-4 mandate, these records must be accessible to labour inspectors at any moment.

In this context, a deficient monitoring tool isn’t a minor administrative lapse. It’s a structural failure that undermines the very enforcement mechanism of working hour limits. Infosys, with a significant presence in France serving European clients, should have been acutely aware of these obligations.

The 70-Hour Echo

Why did a relatively small fine reignite a dormant culture war? The answer lies in the remarks that still haunt the Infosys founder. In 2023, Murthy famously invoked China’s 9-9-6 culture (9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week) and argued that India’s youth must embrace a 70-hour routine to compete globally. The comments sparked a furious nationwide debate about burnout, productivity, and worker dignity.

So when news broke that Infosys had been penalised for flimsy time recording, it became a symbolic moment. Critics saw it as proof that the IT industry’s high-intensity work rhetoric often masks a reluctance to respect worker protections. Others, more fairly, note that the two issues are distinct: the French fine is about compliance mechanics, not about forcing overtime. Yet the overlap in public consciousness is telling. Any labour-related slip by Infosys now carries the weight of Murthy’s words.

A Compliance Wake-Up Call for Indian IT

The episode is less an indictment of a single company and more a mirror to the Indian IT sector’s patchy approach to overseas labour compliance. Indian firms have long thrived on flexibility and cost arbitrage, but as they expand deeper into regulated European markets, the old habits of ad-hoc time reporting or managerial discretion on logging hours become liabilities.

French regulators are not known for leniency. In 2022, a Japanese company in France was fined €50,000 for similar record-keeping lapses. The Infosys fine, though larger, is still a drop in the ocean. Yet reputational costs could be far higher. Clients in banking and insurance, where Infosys derives a huge chunk of revenue, are extremely sensitive to compliance risks. A single overlooked audit trail can jeopardise contracts.

The case also highlights a blind spot: the assumption that digital time recording automatically equates to compliance. Software without proper configuration, audit trails, or integration into managerial workflows is worse than a paper register—it creates an illusion of control. French inspectors are trained to probe exactly that illusion.

Facts

• France’s labour authority fined Infosys €175,000 (~₹2 crore) for a time recording system that did not meet French standards of reliability and auditability.
• The fine is not for employee overwork but for systemic shortcomings in tracking hours, overtime, and rest breaks.
• France enforces a statutory 35-hour workweek with strict record-keeping duties under labour code articles L3171-1 to L3171-4.
• Infosys maintains the penalty will have no material impact on its finances or operations.
• Narayana Murthy’s 2023 call for a 70-hour workweek had earlier triggered a polarised debate on work culture in India.

Criticisms

• Infosys’s failure to implement a robust time recording system in a highly regulated market shows a cavalier attitude toward local labour laws, despite decades of European operations.
• By not disclosing which employee groups were affected, the company has avoided transparency, leaving workers and investors guessing about the depth of the compliance gap.
• Narayana Murthy’s glorification of a 70-hour workweek distracts from the real, enforceable rights of employees—such as accurate time records that prevent wage theft and burnout.
• The IT industry’s tendency to frame labour compliance as a bureaucratic nuisance rather than a fundamental duty perpetuates a culture where shortcuts are normalised, even in nations with strong worker protections.
• French regulators, too, must ensure that fines are not merely symbolic; a €175,000 penalty for a firm with over $18 billion in revenue risks being dismissed as a cost of doing business, rather than prompting systemic change.