Chile’s Growth Without Jobs: Automation, Investment, and the Trabajo 3×3 Gambit

Chile stands at a quiet inflection point where macroeconomic recovery and labor market fragility collide with an accelerating wave of automation. A recent column in La Tercera, authored by the secretary general of Sofofa, dissects the Central Bank's latest monetary policy report and surfaces a paradox that should unsettle policymakers across the developing world.

The good news is that investment is finally poised to return, with gross fixed capital formation projected to expand 8.1% in 2027 and 7.1% in 2028 after a bruising 2026 in which the Imacec activity index contracted 1.5% in July and unemployment hovered at 9.5%.

The warning, however, is far more consequential: since 2020, Chilean employment has stubbornly remained below the level that its historical relationship with economic activity would predict.

This gap between output and job creation is not a statistical curiosity. It reflects a structural decoupling that economists in the United States have already begun to document, where growth without jobs has become a defining feature of the post-pandemic landscape.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG, describes precisely this phenomenon, and Oxford Economics finds that in finance, information, and professional services, employment peaked after 2022 even as GDP continued climbing.

The Chilean question is whether the same fate awaits a small, open economy whose labor force the Central Bank identifies as among the most automation-exposed in the entire OECD.

The median Chilean job carries a 55% risk of automation, the fifth highest among 32 member economies.

What follows is a rigorous examination of the Sofofa column's central argument: that growth must come first, but that Chile must be prepared and accompanied when it arrives.

The analysis unpacks the investment imperative, the automation exposure, the training debate, and the tripartite Trabajo 3x3 initiative that seeks to align government, employers, and unions around a shared agenda.

Each dimension reveals how the old social contract, built on lifetime employment with a single employer, is dissolving faster than the institutions designed to protect it.

TL;DR Chile's recovery outlook carries a structural warning: investment is set to rebound strongly, with gross fixed capital formation projected to grow 8.1% in 2027 and 7.1% in 2028, yet employment has remained below its historical relationship with economic activity since 2020. Automation is a primary culprit, and the Central Bank warns that Chile's labor force is among the most exposed in the OECD, with the median job facing a 55% automation risk, the fifth highest among 32 economies. The Sofofa column argues that growth must come first, but that Chile must simultaneously prepare its workers through reconversion, pro-employment regulation, and sustained investment supported by legal certainty. The Trabajo 3x3 initiative, discussed in three seminars involving unions, employers, and experts, represents the most promising tripartite path forward, with reconversion emerging as the area of greatest consensus.

The Investment Imperative and the Decoupling Thesis

The Sofofa column's foundational claim is deceptively simple: before Chile can diagnose whether it suffers from jobless growth, it must first achieve growth.

The Central Bank's monetary policy report offers a cautiously optimistic forecast, projecting that investment will drive recovery after a weak 2026. Gross fixed capital formation is expected to grow 8.1% in 2027 and 7.1% in 2028, figures that would represent a meaningful reversal from the contractionary pressures of the prior year.

Yet the column insists that every month of delay is a month in which capital considers other countries, a stark reminder that investment is mobile and impatient.

The decoupling thesis, imported from American and European labor economics, holds that GDP growth and employment growth have severed their historical correlation.

Oxford Economics documents this most clearly in finance, information, and professional services, where employment peaked after 2022 while GDP continued to rise.

Diane Swonk of KPMG frames the same phenomenon as growth without jobs, a phrase that captures the unease of policymakers who once assumed that expansion would automatically absorb displaced workers.

Chile's exposure to this trend depends on whether its recovery materializes and whether its labor market institutions can adapt.

Legal certainty and stability emerge as non-negotiable preconditions in the Sofofa analysis. Without them, the projected investment surge remains theoretical, and the decoupling debate becomes moot because there is no growth to decouple from.

The column's insistence on this point reflects a broader anxiety among Chilean business leaders that political uncertainty and regulatory volatility have already deterred capital formation.

The argument is that investment does not wait, and neither does employment, a symmetry that places equal urgency on both sides of the growth equation.

The historical relationship between activity and employment, which held reasonably well for decades, has broken down since 2020. This breakdown is not merely cyclical; it reflects structural changes in how firms deploy capital and labor.

Automation, digitization, and the reorganization of global supply chains have altered the marginal employment intensity of growth. Chile may need to grow more than in the past to maintain the same level of employment, a mathematical reality that the Central Bank's analysis makes explicit.

Why Employment Stopped Tracking Activity

The breakdown in the employment-activity relationship since 2020 is not a Chilean anomaly but part of a global pattern that predates the pandemic. Automation, accelerated by digital transformation during lockdowns, allowed firms to expand output without proportional hiring.

In Chile, this structural shift has been compounded by the nature of the recovery itself, which is capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive. The Central Bank's report implicitly acknowledges that the old elasticity between GDP and employment no longer holds.

Economists describe this as a decoupling, and the evidence from advanced economies is compelling. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and parts of the eurozone, employment in finance, information, and professional services peaked after 2022 even as GDP continued to rise.

This pattern suggests that the marginal job created per unit of growth has fallen, a trend that has profound implications for tax revenue, social cohesion, and political stability.

Chile, with its relatively high automation exposure, may experience this decoupling more acutely than its OECD peers.

The Sofofa column's insistence that Chile first needs to grow before confirming decoupling is methodologically sound but politically fraught. Waiting for growth to materialize before addressing labor market adaptation risks arriving at the future unprepared.

The column acknowledges this tension by arguing that preparation and growth must proceed in parallel, not sequentially. The Trabajo 3x3 initiative is presented as the vehicle for this parallel approach, bringing together employers, unions, and government in a structured dialogue.

Every month of delay in securing investment is a month in which capital considers other countries, the column warns. This is not hyperbole in a world of mobile capital and competitive tax regimes.

Chile's ability to attract and retain investment depends on a predictable regulatory environment, credible institutions, and a workforce that can adapt to technological change.

The investment imperative and the automation challenge are therefore two sides of the same coin, not competing priorities.

The Automation Exposure That Defines Chile's Labor Future

The Central Bank's finding that Chile's labor force is among the most automation-exposed in the OECD should be treated as a national emergency, not a footnote.

The median job carries a 55% risk of automation, the fifth highest among 32 economies in the group. This means that more than half of the tasks performed in the typical Chilean job could plausibly be automated with existing or near-term technology. The implications for employment, wages, and inequality are staggering.

Automation risk is not evenly distributed across sectors or skill levels. Routine cognitive and manual tasks are most vulnerable, while roles requiring complex social interaction, creativity, and physical dexterity in unstructured environments remain relatively protected.

Chile's economy, with its concentration in mining, agriculture, retail, and routine services, is disproportionately exposed. The country's labor force characteristics, including relatively low tertiary education attainment in some cohorts, amplify the risk.

The column's framing of automation as part of the explanation for employment weakness is analytically careful. It does not claim that automation has already destroyed millions of jobs, but rather that it has weakened the link between growth and hiring.

This distinction matters because it suggests that the problem is not mass unemployment but rather a shortfall in job creation relative to what historical patterns would predict.

The policy response must therefore focus on creating new roles, not merely protecting existing ones.

Chile may need to grow more than in the past to maintain the same level of employment, the column argues. This is a mathematical consequence of declining employment intensity of growth.

If each percentage point of GDP creates fewer jobs than before, then faster growth is required to achieve any given employment target.

The implication is that Chile's growth ambitions must be recalibrated upward, even as the labor market's capacity to absorb workers declines.

The Training Debate Beyond Sence

The Sofofa column argues that the debate over training must move beyond whether the Sence tax benefit is maintained. Sence, Chile's national training and employment service, administers a tax credit that allows firms to offset training costs against their tax liabilities.

While valuable, this mechanism has become a proxy for a much larger conversation about what continuous training policy Chile actually needs. The column calls for a broader discussion that addresses automation directly and protects workers' careers over their lifetimes.

Continuous training policy must be designed for a world in which the Labor Code's assumptions no longer hold. The Code was built for a stable relationship with one employer and a job that lasted a lifetime, a reality that is disappearing.

Workers now change employers more frequently, hold multiple roles simultaneously, and must periodically reskill as entire occupations are transformed. Training policy must therefore be portable, modular, and accessible throughout a career, not tied to a single employer's tax strategy.

The column's critique of the Sence debate is not a dismissal of the program but a call for elevation. Maintaining the tax benefit is necessary but insufficient.

What Chile needs is a coherent national framework for lifelong learning that aligns employer incentives, worker aspirations, and government resources. Such a framework would include industry-recognized credentials, paid training leave, and portable benefits that follow workers across jobs. The automation challenge demands nothing less.

Employers and unions agree most on reconversion, the column notes, which suggests a foundation for consensus. Reconversion, or labor reconversion, refers to the process of helping workers transition from declining occupations to growing ones.

It requires identifying emerging skill demands, providing targeted training, and supporting workers through the psychological and financial disruption of career change. The fact that employers and unions converge on this issue is politically significant and provides a basis for action.

The Trabajo 3x3 Initiative and Tripartite Consensus

Sofofa's Trabajo 3x3 initiative, discussed in three seminars this week involving union federations, the business sector, and experts, represents a structured attempt to build tripartite consensus. The initiative has three axes: investment, pro-employment regulation, and labor reconversion.

Each axis addresses a distinct dimension of the employment challenge, and together they form a comprehensive framework for action. The seminars provided a forum for stakeholders to identify areas of agreement and disagreement.

The first axis, investment, recognizes that without capital formation there can be no job creation. The second, pro-employment regulation, acknowledges that labor market rules shape hiring decisions and must be calibrated to encourage rather than discourage employment.

The third, labor reconversion, addresses the supply side by equipping workers with the skills needed in a changing economy. The three axes are interdependent: investment without reconversion creates jobs that workers cannot fill, while reconversion without investment trains workers for jobs that do not exist.

The column suggests a similar outward-looking approach, with government, employers, and workers seeking answers together. This tripartite model has deep roots in Chilean labor relations and reflects the country's historical preference for negotiated solutions over imposed ones.

The Trabajo 3x3 initiative builds on this tradition while adapting it to the specific challenges of automation and jobless growth. Its success depends on whether the parties can move from dialogue to implementation.

Maintaining the status quo in the current labor situation is not neutral, the column argues: it means choosing a model that no longer creates jobs at the needed pace.

This is a powerful reframing of inaction as a deliberate choice with consequences. The status quo is not a safe default but a slow-motion decision to accept declining employment intensity and rising automation risk.

The column's conclusion that growth must come first, but that Chile should be prepared and accompanied when it does, captures the essential dual imperative.

Regulatory Reform and the Pro-Employment Agenda

The second axis of the Trabajo 3x3 initiative, pro-employment regulation, confronts the uncomfortable reality that labor market rules can either facilitate or impede job creation.

Chile's Labor Code, like many in Latin America, was designed to protect workers in stable, long-term employment relationships. It provides severance pay, limits grounds for dismissal, and establishes collective bargaining procedures.

These protections are valuable, but they can also raise the cost of hiring and make firms reluctant to expand payrolls in uncertain times.

Pro-employment regulation does not mean dismantling worker protections. It means designing rules that balance security with flexibility, allowing firms to adjust to changing conditions while ensuring workers are not left unprotected.

This balance is particularly important in a context of automation, where the pace of change may require faster adjustments than traditional labor codes permit.

The column's inclusion of this axis signals that Sofofa is willing to engage with regulatory reform, not merely demand investment.

The debate over regulation is politically sensitive, and the Trabajo 3x3 seminars likely surfaced significant disagreements. Unions may resist changes that weaken job security, while employers may push for greater flexibility in hiring and dismissal.

The column's emphasis on reconversion as the area of greatest consensus suggests that the parties have found common ground on the supply side even if demand-side reforms remain contested. This asymmetry is important for understanding the initiative's prospects.

Pro-employment regulation must also address the gig economy and non-standard work arrangements that fall outside traditional labor protections. As automation and digital platforms reshape employment, more workers may find themselves in precarious roles without access to benefits, training, or collective representation.

A modern labor code must extend protections to these workers without stifling the innovation that creates new forms of work. This is one of the most difficult challenges facing Chilean policymakers.

Legal Certainty as the Foundation of Investment

The column's insistence on stability and legal certainty as preconditions for investment reflects a hard-won lesson from Chile's economic history. Capital flows to jurisdictions where property rights are secure, contracts are enforceable, and regulatory changes are predictable.

Without these foundations, the projected 8.1% and 7.1% growth rates in gross fixed capital formation remain aspirational. The column's warning that every month of delay is a month in which capital considers other countries is a direct appeal to policymakers.

Legal certainty encompasses more than just stable laws; it includes predictable enforcement, independent courts, and transparent regulatory processes. Chile has historically scored well on these dimensions, but recent political turbulence has raised concerns among investors.

The constitutional reform debates, tax policy uncertainty, and shifting regulatory priorities have created a climate in which capital may hesitate. The Sofofa column implicitly acknowledges this by placing legal certainty at the center of its investment argument.

The relationship between legal certainty and employment is indirect but powerful. When firms are confident about the future, they invest in capacity, hire workers, and train them for long-term roles.

When uncertainty prevails, they delay investment, rely on temporary contracts, and minimize training expenditures. The result is a labor market that becomes more precarious precisely when workers need stability most.

Legal certainty is therefore not just a business concern but a labor concern as well.

Chile's development model has historically been built on opening to the world, observing best practices, and staying competitive. The column invokes this tradition to argue that maintaining the status quo is not neutral but a choice to decline.

The outward-looking approach that served Chile well in the past must now be applied to the labor market, with government, employers, and workers seeking answers together. This is the essence of the Trabajo 3x3 philosophy.

Reconversion as the Consensus Priority

Labor reconversion emerges from the Sofofa analysis as the area of greatest consensus among employers, unions, and experts. This is significant because reconversion addresses the supply side of the labor market, where interests are more aligned than on regulatory issues.

Both employers and unions want workers to have the skills needed for emerging jobs, even if they disagree on how to fund and govern training programs. The consensus on reconversion provides a foundation for concrete action.

Reconversion requires a sophisticated understanding of which occupations are declining and which are growing, and what skills are needed to transition between them. This is not a simple matter of retraining workers for whatever jobs happen to be available.

It requires labor market intelligence, industry partnerships, and portable credentials that signal competence to employers. Chile's current training infrastructure, centered on Sence, is not fully equipped for this task.

The column's call for a broader discussion of continuous training policy is therefore a call for institutional innovation. Chile needs new mechanisms for identifying skill gaps, new funding streams for lifelong learning, and new governance structures that bring together employers, unions, and government.

The Trabajo 3x3 initiative provides a forum for developing these mechanisms, but the hard work of implementation lies ahead. The consensus on reconversion is a starting point, not a solution.

Protecting workers' careers, rather than merely their current jobs, is the guiding principle of reconversion policy. This distinction matters because it shifts the focus from preserving existing positions to equipping workers for future ones.

In a world of rapid automation, job preservation is often futile, but career preservation is achievable through continuous learning and strategic transitions. The column's emphasis on careers reflects a mature understanding of what workers actually need.

Growth, Preparation, and the Path Forward

The Sofofa column's conclusion is both a warning and a roadmap: growth must come first, but Chile should be prepared and accompanied when it does. This formulation captures the dual imperative of the current moment.

Without growth, there is no investment, no job creation, and no resources for training. But without preparation, growth will arrive in a form that benefits capital more than labor, widening inequality and leaving workers behind. The two imperatives are not sequential but simultaneous.

The first challenge is for investment to materialize and remain strong over coming decades, supported by stability and legal certainty. This is a long-term commitment that transcends electoral cycles and requires a broad political consensus.

The projected growth rates of 8.1% in 2027 and 7.1% in 2028 are encouraging, but they are forecasts, not guarantees. Realizing them depends on Chile's ability to maintain a predictable and attractive investment climate.

The second challenge is to build a training and reconversion system that equips workers for a changing labor market. This requires moving beyond the Sence tax benefit debate to a broader discussion of continuous training policy.

It requires new institutions, new funding mechanisms, and new forms of tripartite governance. The Trabajo 3x3 initiative provides a starting point, but the hard work of designing and implementing these systems lies ahead.

The third challenge is to reform labor market regulation in ways that encourage employment without sacrificing worker protection. This is the most politically difficult of the three axes, as evidenced by the lower consensus on pro-employment regulation.

But it is also essential, because a labor code designed for lifetime employment cannot serve a workforce that changes jobs frequently and must continuously adapt. The status quo is not neutral; it is a choice to decline.

Lessons from International Experience

Chile is not the first country to confront the decoupling of growth and employment. The United States, the United Kingdom, and several European economies have grappled with similar dynamics, and their experiences offer both cautionary tales and policy lessons.

The American case, where economists speak of growth without jobs, demonstrates that advanced economies are not immune to the phenomenon. Diane Swonk's observation of decoupling at KPMG reflects a broader recognition that the old relationship between GDP and employment has weakened.

Oxford Economics' finding that employment in finance, information, and professional services peaked after 2022 while GDP continued to rise is particularly instructive.

These are sectors that have invested heavily in automation and digital technologies, allowing them to expand output without proportional hiring. Chile's exposure in these sectors may be lower than in advanced economies, but the trend is global.

The lesson is that automation reshapes labor markets regardless of a country's income level.

Denmark's flexicurity model offers a contrasting approach that combines labor market flexibility with generous social protection and active training policies. Under flexicurity, employers can hire and dismiss workers relatively easily, but workers receive substantial unemployment benefits and access to retraining.

This model has been credited with maintaining high employment rates and low unemployment in Denmark despite significant structural change. Chile could adapt elements of this approach to its own context.

Germany's dual training system, which combines classroom instruction with apprenticeships, provides another model for consideration. The system ensures that young workers acquire both theoretical knowledge and practical skills, and it involves employers, unions, and government in curriculum design and governance.

Chile's training infrastructure could benefit from stronger employer engagement and more structured pathways from education to employment. The Trabajo 3x3 initiative's tripartite structure echoes these international models.

The Political Economy of Labor Reform

Labor reform is never merely a technical exercise; it is deeply political, involving competing interests, ideological commitments, and distributional consequences. The Trabajo 3x3 initiative's tripartite structure acknowledges this reality by bringing employers, unions, and government to the same table.

The consensus on reconversion is a promising sign, but the disagreements on regulation suggest that the path forward will be contested. The column's call for an outward-looking approach reflects a recognition that no single party has all the answers.

The political economy of automation is particularly challenging because the costs and benefits are unevenly distributed. Workers in automatable occupations bear the risk of displacement, while firms and consumers capture the gains from productivity.

Without deliberate policy intervention, automation can exacerbate inequality and undermine social cohesion. The column's emphasis on protecting workers' careers, rather than merely their jobs, is an attempt to address this distributional challenge.

The timing of reform matters as much as its content. The column argues that Chile should be prepared and accompanied when growth arrives, not after.

This implies that institutional reforms, training systems, and regulatory adjustments should be designed now, even if their full implementation awaits stronger growth.

The risk of waiting is that the labor market will have already adjusted in ways that are difficult to reverse, with workers displaced and skills lost.

The role of government in this process is to facilitate, not dictate. The column's vision is one of tripartite collaboration, with government providing a framework and resources while employers and unions negotiate the specifics.

This approach respects Chile's tradition of negotiated solutions while recognizing the urgency of the automation challenge. The success of the Trabajo 3x3 initiative will depend on whether the parties can sustain their engagement and translate dialogue into action.

Preparing for Growth That Creates Fewer Jobs

The central paradox of Chile's situation is that the country must pursue growth even as it acknowledges that growth will create fewer jobs than before.

This is not a reason to abandon growth but a reason to redefine what growth is for. If GDP expansion no longer translates automatically into employment, then policy must deliberately channel the gains from growth into job creation, training, and social protection. Growth remains necessary, but it is no longer sufficient.

Preparing for growth that creates fewer jobs means investing in the sectors and occupations that are least vulnerable to automation. Healthcare, education, renewable energy, and creative industries are among the areas where human labor retains a comparative advantage.

Chile's investment strategy should prioritize these sectors, not only for their employment potential but also for their contribution to long-term productivity and social well-being. The column's emphasis on investment quality, not just quantity, is implicit in this approach.

It also means redesigning social protection systems to support workers through more frequent transitions. If workers change jobs more often and experience more periods of unemployment or retraining, then benefits must be portable, accessible, and adequate.

Chile's current system, tied largely to formal employment, may leave workers in non-standard arrangements unprotected. The column's call for a broader discussion of continuous training policy is part of a larger conversation about modernizing social protection.

The column's conclusion that maintaining the status quo is not neutral is a powerful call to action. Inaction means accepting a model that no longer creates jobs at the needed pace, that leaves workers exposed to automation, and that fails to prepare for the future.

The alternative is a deliberate, tripartite effort to build a labor market that is both dynamic and inclusive. Growth must come first, but preparation must accompany it.

The Role of Legal Certainty in Sustaining Investment

Legal certainty is the invisible infrastructure of investment, and its absence is felt long before its presence is appreciated. The Sofofa column's warning that every month of delay is a month in which capital considers other countries is a reminder that investment decisions are made in a competitive global marketplace.

Chile's ability to attract capital depends on its reputation for stability, predictability, and respect for property rights. Any erosion of these foundations has immediate consequences.

The relationship between legal certainty and labor market outcomes is mediated by investment. When firms are confident, they invest in capacity, technology, and people. When they are uncertain, they delay, downsize, or relocate.

The result is fewer jobs, less training, and slower productivity growth. Legal certainty is therefore not just a concern for investors but a precondition for the employment and training policies that the Sofofa column advocates.

Chile's historical success in attracting investment was built on a combination of macroeconomic stability, open trade, and credible institutions. These advantages are not permanent; they must be maintained and renewed.

The column's emphasis on stability and legal certainty is a call to preserve what has worked while adapting to new challenges. The automation challenge does not diminish the importance of these foundations; it makes them more important.

The tripartite approach of the Trabajo 3x3 initiative offers a way to build and sustain legal certainty through dialogue and consensus. When employers, unions, and government agree on a framework for investment, regulation, and training, they send a signal to capital that the rules are stable and the future is predictable.

This is the deeper significance of the initiative: it is not just a forum for negotiation but a mechanism for building the trust that investment requires.

Conclusion: Growth First, But Not Alone

The Sofofa column's conclusion is a masterclass in balancing urgency with realism. Growth must come first, because without it there is no investment, no job creation, and no resources for training.

But growth alone is not enough, because the labor market has decoupled from activity and automation threatens to widen the gap. Chile must be prepared and accompanied when growth arrives, with reconversion policies, pro-employment regulation, and continuous training that protects workers' careers.

The Trabajo 3x3 initiative represents the most promising vehicle for this preparation, bringing together employers, unions, and government around three interdependent axes.

The consensus on reconversion provides a foundation for action, while the disagreements on regulation highlight the political challenges ahead. The initiative's success will depend on whether the parties can sustain their engagement and translate dialogue into concrete reforms. The stakes are high, and the window for action is narrowing.

Chile's development model has always been outward-looking, competitive, and adaptive. The automation challenge requires the same qualities, applied now to the labor market.

The country must open itself to new ideas, observe best practices from around the world, and stay competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. Maintaining the status quo is not neutral; it is a choice to decline.

The alternative is a deliberate, tripartite effort to build a labor market that creates jobs, protects workers, and prepares for the future.

The column's final message is one of cautious hope. Growth is expected to return, investment is projected to rise, and the parties are talking. But hope is not a strategy, and dialogue is not implementation.

Chile must act now to prepare for the growth that is coming, or risk discovering that the jobs it creates are fewer, more precarious, and less accessible than the ones it lost. The time for preparation is not after growth arrives; it is now.