The AI Debate, Career Growth Hypocrisy, and the Hiring Disconnect in India ( a long one because I am pissed)

There is a growing disconnect in today’s hiring culture—especially in India—and it’s becoming difficult to ignore.

Organizations want faster delivery, immediate impact, rapid R&D, and reduced turnaround times, yet they discourage the use of modern tools like AI that directly enable these outcomes. At the same time, they impose unrealistic expectations around loyalty, compensation, growth, and even personal well-being.

The AI Question No One Answers Honestly

What exactly is the harm in using AI during discovery, R&D, or early prototyping?

If AI enables: • Writing thousands of lines of code in days instead of weeks • Accelerating experimentation and learning cycles • Reducing time-to-market • Making teams more efficient during exploratory phases

then rejecting it outright while demanding speed is contradictory.

AI, when used by skilled professionals, doesn’t replace understanding—it amplifies execution. Just like calculators, IDEs, and automation tools did in the past, AI is simply the next productivity layer. The real problem is not AI usage; it’s using tools without understanding—and that applies to any technology.

⸻

God-Level Expectations, Minimal Willingness to Invest

Job descriptions increasingly resemble multiple departments rolled into one role—deep technical expertise, research-level thinking, leadership, architecture, hands-on delivery, and mentoring—all combined.

Yet compensation expectations often remain capped, sometimes at levels that don’t even keep pace with inflation in India.

You can’t expect: • Rare skill sets • Research-heavy experience • End-to-end ownership • Continuous availability

while offering: • Limited financial growth • Minimal raises • Long-term stagnation

That math simply doesn’t work.

⸻

The Career Growth Contradiction

Another uncomfortable reality is how personal growth is treated.

Professionals are expected to grow only in ways that suit the company’s immediate needs—new skills, more responsibility, broader scope—but not in role, compensation, or long-term career progression.

We all know that staying in one company for too long often leads to stagnant pay, sometimes not even matching inflation. Naturally, professionals switch companies to realign growth and compensation.

But when they do: • “Why are you switching so often?” • “Why aren’t you loyal?”

So the expectation becomes: Stay. Don’t grow financially. Don’t change roles. Don’t explore options. But keep upgrading yourself endlessly for the organization’s benefit.

⸻

Loyalty That Works Only One Way

Perhaps the most concerning aspect is how fragile support really is.

In many cases: • If you fall ill • If you face personal challenges • If you disclose a disability or medical condition

support quietly disappears.

Performance history, delivery consistency, and capability often take a back seat to risk avoidance. Instead of accommodation or understanding, the response becomes compensation pressure, silent rejection, or being filtered out entirely.

That raises a serious question about what “corporate culture” actually means today.

⸻

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t about AI. This isn’t about ethics. And it’s not about candidates being unreasonable.

It’s about a system that wants: • Maximum output • Minimal investment • Complete control • Zero risk

while discouraging professionals from: • Using modern tools • Seeking fair compensation • Planning long-term growth • Protecting their health and stability

That imbalance is unsustainable.

⸻

Final Thought

Using AI to improve efficiency is not unethical. Seeking fair compensation is not greed. Switching companies for growth is not disloyalty. Expecting support during difficult times is not entitlement.

If organizations want senior professionals, they must accept that senior professionals think long-term—for their careers, their health, and their lives.

Otherwise, this stops being hiring—and starts feeling like extraction.