Consider Block, the company behind Square and Cash App, which helps businesses take payments and consumers move money. Block told shareholders that AI tools now let a smaller team “do more and do it better,” and that it will cut its workforce from more than 10,000 employees to just under 6,000. That part is easy to see, and easy to fear.

At Block, the first effect is straightforward: some workers lose jobs. That is real. But it is only the first visible kink in a longer chain of economic events. When AI lets Block provide payment services at a lower cost, Block becomes more profitable. In microeconomics, profits do more than reward shareholders. In competitive markets, they signal opportunity. Rivals imitate. Existing firms expand. Entrepreneurs look for a way in. That response means hiring — engineers, sales teams, compliance officers, managers, customer-support workers. No one can know the exact job count in advance. What is easy to know is that the labor story does not end at Block.

Then comes the price effect, and that is where the story becomes much bigger than one firm. Payment processing is the background infrastructure for ordinary commerce. As those productivity gains are passed through into lower fees, it becomes cheaper to run a restaurant, a plumbing company, an online store, or a food truck. That may sound small. Across millions of firms, it is not. Small businesses alone employ about 60 million Americans. Because payment costs sit underneath so much ordinary commerce, even a small decline matters. Lower payment costs mean more viable businesses, more expansions, and more new firms worth starting. The jobs created through that channel will be scattered, quieter, and slower to appear. They will not come in one dramatic press release, but they are part of the same story.

A simple thought experiment helps. Imagine the opposite headline: “Block Hiring Explodes!” Suppose payment companies became less productive over time and had to add workers every year just to handle the same number of transactions. Block’s payroll would rise. But the good news would mostly stop there. Payment fees would go up. Small businesses would face higher costs. Fewer new firms would start. Existing firms would have less room to hire, invest, or raise pay. And because those extra workers would be producing less value per person, they would not be the foundation for strong wages. More jobs are not always good news if more labor is needed just to stand still.

This does not make AI layoffs painless. Some workers will face rough transitions. The new jobs will not all appear in the same firms, places, or occupations. This story also depends on competition. Where a few firms can keep rivals out, more of the gain stays as profit and less shows up as lower prices, business formation, and broader hiring. But microeconomics still tells us to ask a better question. Not just “what did AI let Block stop paying for?” but also “what will cheaper and better payment services let the rest of the economy start doing?”

Bastiat’s warning was to look past the visible first blow and ask about the unseen consequences that follow. Muir saw the same thing in Glacier Bay. At first, he saw only the crushing ice. Looking longer, he saw the richer ground left behind. AI layoff headlines show us the glacier. What they do not show is the lower costs, new firms, wider hiring, and new opportunities that follow. As Muir wrote, “What we in our faithless ignorance and fear call destruction is creation.”

Gavin Roberts is an associate professor of economics and chair of the economics department at Weber State University. He is a recipient of the Gordon Tullock Prize from the Public Choice Society and regularly shares his research locally, nationally and internationally. This commentary is provided through a partnership with Weber State. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent the institutional values or positions of the university.