Joseph this is a fascinating concept. I’m curious what you see as the pure capitalist market correction here? Eg totally unregulated - which seems like the attitude of those in power carry + tech companies.
I fear we’re living in another gilded age where there’s no political courage and the levers of power are all designed to keep those with wealth and power in power - moreso than I can recall in our history.
Is that economic catastrophe and war? Or is there a less violent solution to unregulated AI even without UBI or this proposed tax on automation?
Best to restate what I think is going to happen (and I could be wrong): the signals tell me job displacement will spread at an escalating rate. Jobs are being eliminated from the top and evaporating from within. That doesn’t look linear in the signals. Full-time employment at one employer was a good thing for the last several decades, and it’s beginning to seem outdated.
I also believe we will create far more work for more people than at any time in history, but I see a chasm opening between the loss and the gain. When we’re laying off people at a rate of 850 a day, those people are less able to buy what companies make, which begins to erode the health of this ecosystem we call an economy. The delayed effects take time to show up, but they’re getting baked in while the curve trends upward.
It helps to listen to what AI CEOs are saying. Amodei is pushing for AI companies to be taxed, for “token taxes”, and for an economic reorganization. Musk advocates for sending people checks. Hassabis too. Altman has shifted from UBI to citizen participation in the gains of AI, which I believe is what Musk is getting at as well.
I don’t know the right answer, though I expect we’ll see some form of short-term UBI followed by some citizen equity model. The AI CEOs are arguably more powerful than elected officials. When they’re advocating for their own companies to contribute to the common good, that seems like a possible leading indicator.
Political courage is usually courageous because it’s unpopular. Most of the ideas above wouldn’t make it out of committee on the Hill right now. Seems to me the people accumulating wealth see the playing field and understand that shortening and shallowing the gap is in their interests. My hope is that they’re playing infinite games, ones which preserve the playing field they’re on.
I should be clear that I’m not advocating for any one approach—they all face headwinds and press upon some deep beliefs about work and money. My intention is to show what’s most likely to happen given emergent conditions.
Thanks Joseph - I appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoroughly here. I do agree with the sentiment that we have a relatively narrow window to act here and it's an interesting sign that people like Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon are, ostensibly, in agreement with each other. I also agree that politicians in the US are hopelessly stuck in a system that is jaded, cynical and dysfunctional - and in my view - because the very people who back AI CEOs (and even the CEOs, themselves) - spend billions of lobbying dollars to get the things they think they need for their own businesses...and their own power. It seems hopelessly compromised.
What I do think might be the only saving grace here is the dawning reality that the "short-term" thinking that is endemic to politics is possibly outweighed by the long-term existential implications of this. Monetary gains are a classic example of short-term thinking - and justifying, "Oh, I'll do good for the world with the billions I have" is absolute delusion, even if some are trying to do that.
There is real fear out there. Possibly, and maybe even hopefully, enough people with the power to do something about it actually do something about it.
This was a great segment of a recent Daily Show episode that gets at these similar topics - not sure if you've given it a listen - but I found it valuable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kolVzstukgs
Thanks for elevating these questions Joseph. I've been concerned that this wasn't making the airwaves enough recently with all of the other distractions out there, but glad to know there is some momentum happening out there towards thinking critically about addressing this.
I appreciate you leaning in as well, Josh. The latest issue of The Economist has The AI Jobs Apocalypse as its cover story (https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2026-05-16). I’ve been predicting that jobs will become the defining issue of the 2026 midterms since last year, likely beginning late summer. I think the issue will gain prominence, but you’re right that the political system that could address this works on a different clock speed. Its original intent was fairness and the preservation of liberties, but our pace has exceeded its ability to do that, and compromises in the system have made it worse.
All that said, I’m longterm optimistic. Great struggles produce great leaders.
They absolutely should be the defining issue - amongst several close candidates - all economically related. The pace gap is real - and that is what comes out in this interview above - namely, that we still haven't caught up to all of the digital age changes from the late 1990s in many regards - and even arguably - never fully caught up to the Industrial Revolution in many respects, depending on how you measure it. So, asking for a 1-3 year compressed timeline for humans to adjust without some type of regulation (I know, one of the bad "R" words for some) and oversight is a lot. That's why I appreciate your insights here. I hope some political courage appears alongside a collective pressure to stand up to big power structures/big money, etc.
How does the Pigouvian tax get approval if it currently has low coalition viability? I agree it seems like the most reasonable answer, and I have seen little indication that many of the people with the ability to implement one of these measures will be reasonable. Help me see from an optimistic perspective. :)
Short answer: it doesn’t. It seems like there might be a coalition emerging, but it’s nascent at best. Oh, wait, you asked for optimistic…
One insight from talking with people who advocate for one or the other of these approaches: in private conversations, they all believe the answer is more of a stack: short-term UBI, often followed by Universal Basic Services, followed by some equity fund with distributions supported by growth. When I first wrote this, I thought the combination of methods might be controversial, but instead a learned that that’s how people close to it have been thinking about it.
Actually controversial: the need for any of this. The assumption that AI will create jobs makes it easy to ignore the problem altogether. The assumption that AI will end employment forever also creates some problems for pragmatism. My belief is that it’s in the middle: first a contraction, then a period of uncertainty and financial strife, then a massive expansion in work for people. Much of what I’m doing here is in service of making that middle period shorter and shallower.
If the pay cheque weakens as the core social signal, people will need new ways to declare capacity, intent, constraints, contribution, availability, and value outside traditional job structures.
Stuff like SHシFT becomes part of the new economic interface. Or doesn't! - one will be true.
What an amazing, incisive analysis and thought piece, Joseph. Utterly brilliant and so clear. Thank you for your work and your writing. They are a gift to all of us 🙏🏼
Joseph this is a fascinating concept. I’m curious what you see as the pure capitalist market correction here? Eg totally unregulated - which seems like the attitude of those in power carry + tech companies.
I fear we’re living in another gilded age where there’s no political courage and the levers of power are all designed to keep those with wealth and power in power - moreso than I can recall in our history.
Is that economic catastrophe and war? Or is there a less violent solution to unregulated AI even without UBI or this proposed tax on automation?
Best to restate what I think is going to happen (and I could be wrong): the signals tell me job displacement will spread at an escalating rate. Jobs are being eliminated from the top and evaporating from within. That doesn’t look linear in the signals. Full-time employment at one employer was a good thing for the last several decades, and it’s beginning to seem outdated.
I also believe we will create far more work for more people than at any time in history, but I see a chasm opening between the loss and the gain. When we’re laying off people at a rate of 850 a day, those people are less able to buy what companies make, which begins to erode the health of this ecosystem we call an economy. The delayed effects take time to show up, but they’re getting baked in while the curve trends upward.
It helps to listen to what AI CEOs are saying. Amodei is pushing for AI companies to be taxed, for “token taxes”, and for an economic reorganization. Musk advocates for sending people checks. Hassabis too. Altman has shifted from UBI to citizen participation in the gains of AI, which I believe is what Musk is getting at as well.
I don’t know the right answer, though I expect we’ll see some form of short-term UBI followed by some citizen equity model. The AI CEOs are arguably more powerful than elected officials. When they’re advocating for their own companies to contribute to the common good, that seems like a possible leading indicator.
Political courage is usually courageous because it’s unpopular. Most of the ideas above wouldn’t make it out of committee on the Hill right now. Seems to me the people accumulating wealth see the playing field and understand that shortening and shallowing the gap is in their interests. My hope is that they’re playing infinite games, ones which preserve the playing field they’re on.
I should be clear that I’m not advocating for any one approach—they all face headwinds and press upon some deep beliefs about work and money. My intention is to show what’s most likely to happen given emergent conditions.
Thanks Joseph - I appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoroughly here. I do agree with the sentiment that we have a relatively narrow window to act here and it's an interesting sign that people like Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon are, ostensibly, in agreement with each other. I also agree that politicians in the US are hopelessly stuck in a system that is jaded, cynical and dysfunctional - and in my view - because the very people who back AI CEOs (and even the CEOs, themselves) - spend billions of lobbying dollars to get the things they think they need for their own businesses...and their own power. It seems hopelessly compromised.
What I do think might be the only saving grace here is the dawning reality that the "short-term" thinking that is endemic to politics is possibly outweighed by the long-term existential implications of this. Monetary gains are a classic example of short-term thinking - and justifying, "Oh, I'll do good for the world with the billions I have" is absolute delusion, even if some are trying to do that.
There is real fear out there. Possibly, and maybe even hopefully, enough people with the power to do something about it actually do something about it.
This was a great segment of a recent Daily Show episode that gets at these similar topics - not sure if you've given it a listen - but I found it valuable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kolVzstukgs
Thanks for elevating these questions Joseph. I've been concerned that this wasn't making the airwaves enough recently with all of the other distractions out there, but glad to know there is some momentum happening out there towards thinking critically about addressing this.
I appreciate you leaning in as well, Josh. The latest issue of The Economist has The AI Jobs Apocalypse as its cover story (https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2026-05-16). I’ve been predicting that jobs will become the defining issue of the 2026 midterms since last year, likely beginning late summer. I think the issue will gain prominence, but you’re right that the political system that could address this works on a different clock speed. Its original intent was fairness and the preservation of liberties, but our pace has exceeded its ability to do that, and compromises in the system have made it worse.
All that said, I’m longterm optimistic. Great struggles produce great leaders.
They absolutely should be the defining issue - amongst several close candidates - all economically related. The pace gap is real - and that is what comes out in this interview above - namely, that we still haven't caught up to all of the digital age changes from the late 1990s in many regards - and even arguably - never fully caught up to the Industrial Revolution in many respects, depending on how you measure it. So, asking for a 1-3 year compressed timeline for humans to adjust without some type of regulation (I know, one of the bad "R" words for some) and oversight is a lot. That's why I appreciate your insights here. I hope some political courage appears alongside a collective pressure to stand up to big power structures/big money, etc.
How does the Pigouvian tax get approval if it currently has low coalition viability? I agree it seems like the most reasonable answer, and I have seen little indication that many of the people with the ability to implement one of these measures will be reasonable. Help me see from an optimistic perspective. :)
Short answer: it doesn’t. It seems like there might be a coalition emerging, but it’s nascent at best. Oh, wait, you asked for optimistic…
One insight from talking with people who advocate for one or the other of these approaches: in private conversations, they all believe the answer is more of a stack: short-term UBI, often followed by Universal Basic Services, followed by some equity fund with distributions supported by growth. When I first wrote this, I thought the combination of methods might be controversial, but instead a learned that that’s how people close to it have been thinking about it.
Actually controversial: the need for any of this. The assumption that AI will create jobs makes it easy to ignore the problem altogether. The assumption that AI will end employment forever also creates some problems for pragmatism. My belief is that it’s in the middle: first a contraction, then a period of uncertainty and financial strife, then a massive expansion in work for people. Much of what I’m doing here is in service of making that middle period shorter and shallower.
Thanks for doing that work Joseph.
If the pay cheque weakens as the core social signal, people will need new ways to declare capacity, intent, constraints, contribution, availability, and value outside traditional job structures.
Stuff like SHシFT becomes part of the new economic interface. Or doesn't! - one will be true.
In order to bake an apple pie from scratch, one must first invent the universe.
Sounds exhausting + I don't like cooked fruit - ha ha! ughh.
What an amazing, incisive analysis and thought piece, Joseph. Utterly brilliant and so clear. Thank you for your work and your writing. They are a gift to all of us 🙏🏼
Thank you, @Larissa Conte. All of this is building toward a very different (and brilliant) near future.