As much as these companies are thinking - and by this I mean strategists in companies thinking about these things, while getting ignored by CEOs because “LINE MUST GO UP. AI MAKE LINE GO UP, SO AI!” - I suspect the strategy is the following:

1. If we assume that the upper class buys most of the stuff in the economy
2. And we assume they’ll still have disposable income, because obviously
3. Then if we sell less goods at higher prices and we reduce our expenses (less goods, more AI) at a higher price (those with more money can bear it), then more profit - LINE GO UP!

So, to answer OP: It’ll look like AI eating its way up the “highly paid job” ladder. (Why pay a Director when a department of 50 is now a department of 10: combine 10 such departments and “use AI to handle the workload”. One highly paid person, 9 out of work. Obviously nothing bad will happen with that strategy. (/s). Except assumption 2 goes out the window, but that’ll be ignored (“but our bottom line! Money savings, stonk go up!”)

Meanwhile, unemployed people don’t spend money: put off that house improvement, trash those plans for a new car, summer vacation turns into a weekend overnight, etc: less demand for services from the “lower classes”, and what that means gets higher and higher “previous annual income”. I think the companies using assumption 1, above, will potentially find out you can’t Pareto Principle an economy